Discount Indigenous Voices at Your Peril-Lost Voice 5 AUGUST

Lost Voices:
Why is Te Tiriti not named in the Social Work Registration

Act (SWRA) 2003?

A research report presented in partial fulfilment of the
Requirements for the degree of Masters of Social Work (Applied)
At Massey University, Palmerston North,

Aotearoa New Zealand.

Merrill Simmons-Hansen.
Student ID: 89034981.
2010
This work represents original data gathering and analysis
Copyright 2013-Merrill Simmons-Hansen.
To reproduce for personal use please ask.

Lost Voices: Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA (2003)? M.S.H.
ii

Abstract.
This research report examines the voices of those who made submissions in respect of the
Social Workers Registration Bill (SWRB). It explores within those submissions the Te Tiriti o
Waitangi discourse using a documentary analysis methodology.
The research found that despite submitters support for naming Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the
legislation, it was not included in the Social Workers Registration Act (SWRA) (2003). I argue
that the effect of this was a silencing of the submitters voices and of the bicultural commitment
tradition within the social work profession. The resulting Act promotes a standard setting
discourse, rather than respecting narratives which may develop accountability in context of
whanau, hapu, iwi, one in which women social workers and Maori social workers engage in the
terms and the agreement.
Many submitters argued however, that inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi would produce meaning
thus informing the Act enabling negotiation of just power relationships in Aotearoa. Their
recommendations encouraged social workers to become reflective regarding the power-
knowledge continuum, their understanding of the Act, and its underpinning of a hoped for social
justice tradition. To ensure accountability social workers take this understanding into their
social work as an invitational practice, in both contextual and collaborative searches for
meaning and accountability.

iii

Acknowledgments:

First I acknowledge the original submission writers, as without their courageous voices this
research would have been not possible.

I acknowledge my supervisor Kieran ODonoghue whose fidelity, enthusiasm and patience then
has supported me to move from a tangle of original ideas to research and form this document.
Thank you sincerely. I acknowledge also Emma Webber Dreadon, valued colleague Ngati
Kahu, Ngati Apatari, Te Uri-o-Te-O-Tane ki Wairoa. Emma, like Kieran believed there were
lost voices. That this study might do those justice required your faith.

I am thankful to my parents for generating a respect for questions, those companions that
travel alongside one, inviting possibilities. Thanks also is well overdue to my partner Wol, for
sharing in conversations, and accepting my vanishing away to write. Equally, my appreciation
goes out to my brothers, my children and families for acknowledging my study yet also asking
where I was? This offered me the necessary shelter of relationships still warm to return to
after writing. Thank you. I acknowledge my daughter Louisa for her patience, both with
conversation, my writing, and the technological issues that were to be mastered. I look forward
to her wise capacity for enabling further writing that is liberating.

In the many moments of my own limitations with the written word, I recalled thosere
imaginings offered by others in whanau, hapu, social services who shared with me. These
caught my minds eye like sunshine catches on dew, and enabled this work. Thank you all.
May those voices be heard within this work, for without relationship we diminish and are
eternal no more. I acknowledgment the land and the ancestors, which may nourish us all long
after the ink of any writing fades: that in my grandfathers tongue, gaelic Do mo cairde a tug,
foscad agus solas-to the land and the ancestors.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate.T.S. Eliots Little Gidding (last stanza).

iv

Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................iv
List of Figures and Tables v

Chapter One: An Introduction..............................................................................................1
Aims and objectives of the research
The Research Question
Researchers interest in the topic and analytic framework
The context and Key concepts used in this
The structure of the report.

Chapter Two: Literature Review............................................................................................ 10
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the development of social work in Aotearoa New
Zealand.
Conclusion.

Chapter Three: Research Design/Methodology......................................................................29
The Documentary Analysis Approach
Research Design.
Selection, accessing, collection of documents
Procedures used in data analysis
The Ethics of the study
Difficulties faced..
The Limitations of the research methodology
Conclusion.

Chapter Four: Results and discussion....................................................................................43
Introducing the submissions voices
Themes from the submissions
The official response
The implications, meanings and alternatives possibilities

Chapter Five: Conclusion62
Review of the research, objectives and question,
Key Findings
Implications for social work
Recommendations
Concluding reflections
Appendices
Appendix 1.............................................................................................................. 76
Appendix 2............................................................................................................82
Appendix 3 .......87
Glossary 88
References .....90

v

List of Figures and Tables

Table 1 (Themes in social work discourses).....20

Table 2 (ANZASW Bicultural partnerships). 21

Table 3.1 (Analysis; positioning relationships)..22

Table 3.2 (Stages in the Document Research).32

Table 3.3 (Steps in Research procedure)..36

Table 3.4 (Te Tiriti and related discourses shaping Law and Lore) 38

Table 4 (comparison and contrast of documents)..44

vi

1

Chapter One: Introduction.

This chapter introduces the research and overviews the topic. It presents the
aims and objectives of the research, the research question, the researchers
interest in the topic, and establishes the analytic framework and context and
concepts used throughout this research.
This study explores submissions to the final formation of the Social Workers
Registration Act (2003), (SWRA (2003)) within Aotearoa New Zealand and
reasons why Te Tiriti is not named in the SWRA (2003) and reasons that the
Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi, 1840) clearly identifies Maori as people of
this land with inherent rights, responsibilities and relationships (Durie, 1995). Te
Tiriti is seen acknowledging terms of agreement between peoples of the Treaty
(tangata Te Tiriti) with rights towards Maori and to a Te Tiriti based society
(ANZASW 2008). Te Tiriti today continues to inform understanding and identity
within Aotearoa. This research aims to respond to that tradition of relationship
and therefore of accountability (Sampson, 2003, in Drewery, 2005) with people of
Te Tiriti (tangata Te Tiriti), people of the land (tangata whenua), and within the
negotiation of bicultural relationships.
To understand bicultural treaty based relationships it is important to recognize
that different definitions emphasise particular dimensions of biculturalism within
varied cultural and political contexts. For example, Kelsey, (1991), and Ritchie,
(2003) argue that biculturalism is a potentiality emerging from Maori tino
rangatiratanga (absolute integrity of whanau, hapu). Herbert (2002 in Smithers,
2007) suggests that four critique or analysis inform the bicultural treaty based
relationships. These are as follows :
Firstly, structural biculturalism identified in the partnership between Maori and the
Crown.
Secondly, bicultural partnerships represent others and Maori.
2

Thirdly, symbolic biculturalism is through the expression of rights and
responsibilities of all New Zealanders.
Fourthly, that material biculturalism in the redress of historical wrongdoing.

These four analysis points inform the writer, reader through this study process.

Te Tiriti then, informed non Maori in becoming biculturally appropriate, or being
bicultural (Smithers, 2007). In other words, concepts enabling Maori self-
determination become as critical analysis principles that guides bicultural social
workers in their practice and relationships. Simultaneously, this principle informs
safe accountable relationships. Contemporary discussions for the registration of
social workers sought to delineate safety and accountability by the creation of the
SWRA (2003). This is exampled in the consultation hui, meetings prior to
developing the draft. Bicultural work to enable partnership between Maori and
the Crown could inform safety as carefully negotiated responsibilities,
accountabilities for distinct hapu, iwi, Maori, communities in such an Act. Active
partnership with hapu Maori involvement is essential (Durie, 1995).

The recognition of Te Tiriti within the social work profession (Aotearoa New
Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW)) is identified from the
establishment of The Waitangi Tribunal (from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975).
Puao Te Ata Tu-Day Break (1986) a report which identified a culture of racism
within the Department of Social Welfare. These recommendations about cultural
based practices when working with Maori offered a repositioning for non Maori
when working with Maori. Non Maori (Pakeha) social workers seeking non racist
approach to working became conscious of distinctions previously silenced. They
as social workers had been in authority as expert in their professional
knowledge (Hartman 1992).

3

The call to consult with whanau, hapu, when working with Maori children as
legislated in the Child Young Persons and their Families Act (1989) marked a
fundamental call to cultural accountability. Knowledge as no longer value free, as
culturally constructed became central. Recommendations in the CYF Act(1989)
for social workers to consult with whanau enabled the specific examination of
whose knowledge and power informed care of vulnerable children when engaging
with whanau, hapu, and iwi. Opportunity existed for the acknowledgment of
personal, structural and institutional racism against Maori by a State welfare
system, from which Social work was delivered in ways which reflected non Maori
values. Within the ANZASW profession membership called for recognition and
redress of racism and developed a bicultural model of governance and also
Maori and non Maori Chairpersons. Further to this intent, the Kaiwhakahaere
role was established, serving to centralize Maori knowledge to guide all
governance work of the profession, including the caucusing of Maori members.
This extended to ANZASW introduction of powhiri( ritual for safe passage of
visitors and home people together), waiata (ancestral and supportive songs and
tributes), to focus bicultural practice.

The initial stage of the SWRA (2003) commenced with its introduction as a
Parliamentary Bill in September 2001. Community members, tangata whenua,
social workers, social services, the International Federation of Social Workers
and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) along
with others produced thirty-seven submissions with the intent to inform the
meaning of the eventual Act. There was an expectation that the registration of
Social Workers would provide greater protection to recipients of social work
services, many of whom were vulnerable from harm that may result from poor
social work practice. Simultaneously significant shifts were occurring in the
welfare state, (SWR Bill Commentary 155-2) (OBrien, 2009).

4

This research onwards seeks to understand how the voices in the submissions
influenced the formation of the Act. The researcher was mindful of Te Tiriti based
society and how social work practitioners may recognize this in their work. In the
following chapter the contextual background pertaining to the role of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of social consciousness, law, social
work and the call to Registration within the role of Te Tiriti within that journey will
be discussed as the background to the Social Workers Registration Bill (2002)
((SWRB 2002)).

Background
The reader is advised that a fuller genealogy of the SWRB will be discussed in
the next chapter (see Chapter 2). The immediate background to the bill starts as
a consequence of the 1999 election of the Labour Government and was part of
their manifesto.

Within his report presented by former Youth Court Judge, Mick Brown(2000)
reviewing the Department Child Youth and Family Services procedures observed
44% of front line staff, and 55% of new staff held B level social work
qualifications, that the service had capacity issues about releasing staff for
training, and that there were concerns associated with a high staff turnover and
high case loads. The Crown report (2000) recommended that registration of
social workers be given urgency, and that by mid 2002 social workers were not to
exercise statutory powers except if they were co-working with registered social
workers or members of the police. The Department was to have an agreed
percentage of registered staff realized by mid 2002 (Bills Digest No 818). The
response of the Government of the time recorded in Member of Parliament
Honorable Steve Maharey correspondence was to commit to this notion of a fully
5

skilled social work staff and that the Social Work Registration Bill would be
introduced.

In this time frame, the Ministry of Social Policy discussion paper identified a
number of complexities (2000). For example:
there were relational differences required to define social work,(pg 1)
variations in levels of staff qualifications, (pg 2)
36% of social workers were employed by central government (pg14,
an industry educator (Te Kai Awhina Ahumahi) existed for social services,
diffidence about the professional body ANZASW principle of a face to
face competency assessment process for provisional to full membership
approval.
From here, the Bill was put before Parliament and then referred to the Social
Services Select Committee. Here the bill was to be commented on through a
process of receiving written submissions, discussion. The general support for
registration developed to promote that registration be compulsory for statutory
governmental social workers. A general meeting of social workers had proposed
registration should be independent of government. It is noteworthy that with this
discourse, the notions of safe and accountable relationship would occur through
relationships to public and the profession (Bills Digest, No 818, pg 3/8).

Throughout the consultation phase of the process there was wide support for
Treaty of Waitangi based constitution shaping the registration of social workers;
the following research traces all collective submissions which inform this
statement-(see Findings chapter).

Discussion included a separate registration body for Maori social workers and
consideration be given the appropriate representation of different ethnic values, in
how these informed speaking and behaving safely and with accountability to
6

those made vulnerable, in need, less able to access justice. Exploring the
conveying of these traditions and difference as expressed in the submissions
informing the Act then became the focus for the research.

Aims of the research

The aims and objective of the research are to explore the voices of the
submitters, and how they may have informed the formation of the Act. The
research around 'Te Tiriti' as a discourse would occur through the researcher
applying the four critiques described by Herbert (Herbert 2002 in Smithers 2007).
This approach would examine linkage to the indigenous tradition in Aotearoa and
social work, this sensitising notion (developed in Herberts critique( in Smithers
2007) guides the researcher in examining voices held in submission documents,
the Act, as well as any associated implications.

Research question

Lost Voices, Why is Te Tiriti not named in the Social Workers Registration Act
(2003)? The consideration of the research question was the focus. By applying
critique in Herberts approach(in Smithers 2007) the researchers develops what
may be lost from the submission process to the legislation, and what may be lost
between Maori and Te Tiriti informed work, and the social work produced under
the SWRA. (2003).

Researchers interest in the topic.

As a social worker and the researcher I have a curiosity about language
7

particularly in terms of how language reflects the creators thinking, and also
equally shapes the way people may respond, think, and the choices they allow
themselves to engage with their world. The practice of discourses spoken,
written, conveyed in architecture, arts, equally link to social structures (Winslade,
2002). I wish to discover how the SWRA (2003) was formed (constituted)
through the language and discourse as well as its effect in terms of what
language is available to social workers to describe their work (Foucault, 1972)
(Winslade, 2002).

With regards to the research the exploration of language through a document
analysis methodology allows examination of the voices in the submissions
seeking to inform the SWRA (2003). For myself as social worker and researcher
this activity is consistent with social workers working for social justice-inclusion,
equity (ANZASW, Code of Ethics, 2008).That ANZASW social workers are
encouraged to be mindful of the assumptions that serve to conceal power
inequalities in society, of dominating discourses that reposition self determination
offers again pertinent to the research about legislation itself for contributing to
recognition of registered social workers (Everitt, Hardiker, Littlewood, &
Mullender, 1992). To myself as the researcher that the social worker may or may
not recognise their voice in the Act, may add to the inclusion/exclusion of their
expertise. Self, voice and formation of identity are argued as significant in
contribution to women and therefore women social work development (White,
1991, cited in Drewery, 2005).

The researchers interest is in language and how this is constructed within
dominating discourses that may silence key understandings. The researchers
challenge was to illustrate where loss was present, to highlight the significance of
the loss and its value, to better enable equitable access and just relationships.
8

The sensitisation offered in the research question could enable what was lost
being raised to be heard in that the submitters meaning was sought to then
enable the research objectives. Factors that reposition gender and race losses,
including opportunity for democratic participation by citizens, by women, by
Maori, and professionals in their profession concern the researcher in the
Aotearoa context (Cheyne, O'Brien, Belgrave, (2000) (Drewery, 2005).

Analytical framework and context

The submissions and related documents offer literature and wordings as tangible
measures from which to consider the submitters concerns. This is through the
use of document analysis as a methodology. By the researcher being sensitised
to what is 'lost' in documents, then this methodologys strength is to enable those
written elements to be recognised and therefore heard. By applying then, a
sensitising notion as held in submission documents (A) (which referenced Te
Tiriti), then noticing of any of this data in the Act (B), the submitters voices could
be recognised, be seen as heard.
Further that through sensitisation by the key word search of Te Tiriti, the
relationship of respect with Maori and that tradition of symbolic biculturalism
(Herbert in Smithers 2007) seeking to inform social work could be kept uppermost
in the study (Burr, 2003; Patton 2002; Ranginui, 1989; Puao Te Ata Tu 1986).
That language is recognised as having a creative attribute also informs the
implication of this research, as discourses create what they describe (Winslade,
2002). This in turn informs social work analysis in that it makes evident hidden
assumptions that disadvantage or advantage relationships. Theories such as
antiracism and feminism enable the recognition in language of the different
advantaging or exclusion of peoples (based on ethnicity and gender), and
9

informed the resulting analysis through the comparison and contrast of data from
the submissions and the Act. A discursive analysis helped describe the
theoretical and practical implications around subjugation noted in the study.

The analytical context is informed by theories that seek to critique power and
exclusion and are consistent with the call for mindfulness of self determination
and avoidance of exclusion in Aotearoa social work (ANZASW Code of Ethics,
2008). This context is crucial given the limitation in the location and analysis of
any text, and became informed by the researchers literature review and
substantive concerns (Weber, 1985).
The challenge to establish what may be seen as non consequential since now the
SWR Act (2003) is formed and this is written seven years into Registration
environment, remains however valid for the research offers diverse reflections.
One reflection is the way submission writing may contribute towards final
legislation.
As the researchers the formation of this report intended that others can be
enabled to access the documents studied. That the data in the research is
examined in context of the original submission before being interpreted,
redresses any personal bias. The data applicability then is applied within its
authors intent so that voices are not lost, that the research itself is recognised as
maintaining and producing subjectivity.

The Structure of the report

Chapter two introduces the reader to the background in a literature review, which
examines the context of the study within the history of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the
development of social work Aotearoa New Zealand. This extensive discussion is
10

summed up in the chapter conclusion. This leads to the methodology chapter.

In chapter three, the reader is lead through the research design/methodology,
and introduced to the documentary analysis approach. The research design,
selection, accessing, collection of documents are described. Procedures used in
data analysis and the ethics of the study are considered along with difficulties
faced. The limitations of the research methodology and conclusion follow the
conclusions.

The findings are presented in chapter four. The results and discussion follow the
introduction of the submissions voices, the themes from the submissions, and the
official response. The implications, meanings and alternative rising out of the
findings are then discussed.

Chapter five covers the conclusion. This reflects on the study by offering a review
of the research, objectives and question, along with the key findings, and
identifies some of the implications for social work. The report concludes with
recommendations and the researchers concluding reflections.

11

Chapter Two: The Literature Review examining Te Tiriti o
Waitangi and the Development of Social Work in Aotearoa
New Zealand

To inform the context for this research, the following literature review focuses on
three discourses as ways of seeing the world in historical narratives. The first
locates Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the context of Aotearoa New Zealand as a
discourse informing social consciousness, law, and social work. The second
discourse discusses the development of the profession of social work in Aotearoa
New Zealand, particularly informed by postmodernist ideas of how post-industrial
society affects the social sphere of the practice. The third discourse traces the
placement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the journey towards social work
registration.

Discourse: The contextual background

Discourse analysis will be used as the framework informing this study. Theorists
have suggested that discourse forms the object of which it speaks and so has an
active ability (Foucault, 1972) and can push people about. Through a
researchers critical examination of discourse, the use of language is seen as
implicitly connected to structures in society, law, economics, and culture which
evidences notions of power (Payne, 1997; Shannon, 1999; Foucault, 1972). In a
general sense, people interpret and understand their experience and perception
through socially agreed representations. Their constructions of relationships then
consequentially shape the response of social work to modern society (Parton,
1996 cited in Payne, 1997). For this study, the researcher examines the
agreements which informed the Social Work Registration Act (2003) (SWRA
(2003)), how they are connected to social structures and how the Act came
12

about.

As a discourse, SWRA (2003) produces social work. The Act defines the
standards in regard to competence, qualifications and fitness for practice, relating
these to the protection of the public. Foucault (1997) describes how producing
knowledge generates power. The SWR Act as discourse generate knowledge of
what is a registered social worker, and this power also results in a positioning of
workers as registered (or not). This can be argued as a class system now is
established of registered and non registered.

This is power arguably created in the construction of people, rather than only in
the repressing of them (Winslade, 2002). It should also be noted that the
language used to construct discourse also carries immense cultural weight and
gender validation (Bond, 2002) (Pinkolas Estes 1992). With this weighting
typically privileging those dominant traditions. Dominant traditions have shaped
notions of social justice (as fair equitable access) and the representation of
human rights, which underpin social work differently across time (OBrien, 2009).
For example, social workers once aided striking workers but such practice is
uncommon today (Ventura, 2005).

As the researcher I remain aware of older traditions around power embedded in
this land, traditions marking a very different analysis of power. By the power to
work collectively for example, whanau hapu have remained successful across
diverse environments and landscapes (Durie 2007). This power informs hapu
notions of understanding of landscape, how trust, responsibility and rights form
(Jackson, 2010, ODonoghue, 2003; OBrien, 2009; Shannon, 1999).

Acknowledgment must be made to how a Nation State forms from other values
and interacts upon hapu traditions.
13

Power is also played out in employment, and the employment of social workers.
The employment pattern also interacts on the female gender. Social work is
largely practiced by women. The employment terms requiring registered social
workers in roles can shape the recognition of women and their knowledge which
they bring to social work relationships. This may be as a subjective nature to
understanding power within gendered relationship informing the practice of
social work as well as those contexts where traditional dynamics of power are
recognized (Shannon, 1999).

These are further examples, the cultural, economic and political notions. The
notions of economic power play out where a user pays for an hour session in
practice that is individual focused. Alternatively the economic power structures
may be overthrown in transformative social practice where structures around the
distribution of resources are the focus for change in individual lives. Conversely
those notions of power in economics will not be critiqued where practice is
dominated by power aligned to maintaining social order where the focus is to
enable the individual to resume their place in that current social ordering (Payne,
2006, Roy, 2005).

Critical analysis is concerned with mediation of power for social arrangements,
such as the SWR Act (2003). Paynes (2006) three views are helpful for analysis
of power here. First, the therapeutic view in which social work is seen to seek the
best possible means of wellbeing for individual and community and likewise,
interacts with other two views. Second, the transformative view seeks that
changes originate from communities for the benefit of the poor and oppressed.
The third is a social order view. This sees social work maintaining the social
order and fabric by supporting individuals through difficulty.

These three views interact, at times align, and at times also compete. The
14

researcher proposes the three also function to position the activities and purpose
of social work, and social workers in any society. Further that a parallel journey
occurs through any justice based intervention of the worker (Payne, 2006,
Jenkins, 2009).

Through discourses such as the SWRA (2003) the concept of the State and the
registered social worker interacting in part with a therapeutic role. They ultimately
generate and maintain a social order through the SWR Act (2003) discourse.
Here there is arguably an emphasis on compliance generated in worker,
community and employer obedience (Roy, 2005; Cumming, 1985; Payne, 2006).
Should social workers disregard, by their noncompliant toward a discourse, then
those associated power structures diminish or fail (Winslade, 2002). This
research attempts to investigate the place of Te Tiriti in the SWRA (2003) as a
social work structure is investigated through this research. The following section
overviews Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a discourse, and explores its place within
Aotearoa as a way to see the world social consciousness, law and social work.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi as discourse

The Treaty as a way to see the world both names and produces the power
relationship of Maori and the settler culture in both oral and written form as a
basis for settlement in 1840 (Winslade, 2002; Durie, 2003). As a discourse Te
Tiriti informed the agreed relationships between Maori and non-Maori across a
range of power interactions, including those within social work (Power & Sharp,
2001; Fleras & Spoonley, 1999; Cram, 2001; ANZASW, 2008). This power of
Maori naming their world (Ryde, 2009 citing McIntosh, 1988) marked ways of
articulating integrity, in which the relational world of two peoples reflected
interwoven sets of power relationships (Jackson, 2010). All of this land was
15

(connected) to Maori prior to 1840 (Jackson 2010). These relationships then and
today to mark the distinction of self and others, offering a way to redress euro-
centrism. To uphold self-determination within the dominant capitalist model with
its associated form of democracy and notions of law (Drewery, 2005; Seed
Pihama, 2005; Roy, 2005). The Treaty discourse was formed in two languages,
each with discrete values and notions of safe or accountable relationships
(Durie, 1991). This research focus on the Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi
(1840), as both hapu members and the Waitangi Tribunal argued as the version
that enables Maori as people of the land and enhances their relational world.

Te Tiriti and Social Consciousness
I now explore the origins of the Treaty as an agreement and how it came about
through to the present day from a social perspective.

The origins of Te Tiriti o Waitangi emerged from the preliminary amicable
negotiations of two cultures (Williams, 1989; Yensen et al., 1989). The context in
which Te Tiriti arose was one of oral and written treaty making. This tradition
arose to address the threats to integrity by settlers seeking land ownership in a
way that was foreign to Maori relationship values (Consedine & Consedine,
2005).

Te Tiriti drew from critical analysis of power. Power held that transformative value
in social consciousness that today requires a parallel journey by the social worker
(Payne, 1997). Accordingly this notion of transformative power emerged for Maori
from a tradition of treaty-making that acknowledged the Maori world. As a tribal
identity represented a socially agreed representation of their world by mandating
tino rangatiratanga (absolute integrity)(Drewery, 2005).

16

From this representation Maori integrity in tribal, hapu, whanau authority was the
basis for any alliance with settlers (Durie, 1991) (Durie, 2003; Yensen, Hague,
McCreanor et al, 1989) and continues to inform contemporary life as all social
work occurs where history of whanau explicitly connects to land (ODonoghue,
2003). In Maori tradition there is no individual private title or ownership of
property, only tribal relationships (Durie, 2005). Treaty making (as an extant
picture, as a socially agreed representation of the world) as is whakapapa
(ancestry), informed understanding of the world and natural phenomena (Woller,
2005).

For Maori then, their understanding of treaty making was to produce a means of
providing settlers with land use rights; Maori considered they would retain the
traditional guardianship of the whenua, land, as evidenced at the Treaty signing
with the words: the substance of the land remains with us (Panakareao, cited in
Wards, 1832). In this way, it is acknowledged that the understanding of
difference was clear.

From the British perspective the creation of its new colony began with treaty
making, followed by introduction of British law (e.g. the Land Settlement Act
1853) which positioned Maori in a relationship with the British monarchy, on
British terms (Vaggioli, 1896; Orange, 1990). This positioning was understood
and illustrated by Maori, as revealed by Panakareao a year after the Treaty was
signed where he says: the substance of the land goes to European; the shadow
only will be our portion (cited in Wards, 1832) (Webber Dreadon 1999).

In other words, British colony making was informed by a different discourse from
that of Maori and this discourse sought to shape society in Aotearoa. One
illustration of this for the British was their use of English to inform their signed
version of Treaty of Waitangi (and then this shaped their version for Maori; for
17

the hapu and iwi the meanings held in the Maori world, conveyed in te reo, the
Maori language, informed the Te Tiriti O Waitangi). The social values in each of
the Treaty versions varied, particularly in regard to Article One term,
kawanatanga, which for the British held a translated meaning of complete
surrender of Maori tribal authority, and as informed for Maori (from access to
English in Biblical readings), as a benevolent governor of the English Crown,
supportive of Maori social integrity (Orange, 1990) (Yensen et al, 1989). These
differences reflected the distinct social structures between the two cultures,
carried in language such as benevolent governorship and tribal authority
(rangatiratanga) (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz).

The background and signing of Te Tiriti

Te Tiriti, as a discourse, is connected to the social structuring of the time. As a
socially agreed representation there was a tradition to inform contemporary
ideals. In the 19
th
century Maori had sought their independence in the country by
initiating The Declaration of Independence (1835) under the United Tribes of New
Zealand (Consedine et al, 2005). This recognition of Maori sovereignty and
independence then required Britains mechanism to justify imposing its own
notions of regulated colonisation by law on Maori (Durie, 1998)
(http://www.nzhistory.net.nz retrieved 25/11/09). Maori had requested
intervention to deal with the lawlessness of British settlers (1831). Motivated by
advantaging British interest, the British Colonial office appointed Hobson to
negotiate a treaty which both sides fully understood. Te Tiriti was signed by
sufficient number of chiefs (Consedine et al., 2005) (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz)
which showed that Hobson acknowledged Maori centrality, while also acting to
achieve British colonization by a legal discourse which enabled the colonisers
centrality; this led to attempts in managing Maori society through laws about
land sales under governorship of New South Wales (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz).
18

The English version of the Treaty reflects Hobsons notions (Moon in Consedine
et al., 2005, Orange, 1990, Cook, 2008). The Treaty was signed on 6 February
1840, with most Maori signing copies of the Maori text only. On 21st May the
same year Hobson announced sovereignty over all of the country claiming the
North island by cession and, dismissive of Maori inhabitation, of the South island
by discovery (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz).

The Treaty making and British law making

The British understanding of the world was informed by extensive colonisation,
and law making conducted only in Britain, in the House of Commons and House
of Lords (Consedine et al, 2005). As part of the making of a colony, the British
practice was to set the terms under their version of a Treaty shaped according to
the structure of colonial law in an outreach of their own country. This meant a
dismissal of Maori integrity and a demand that Maori surrender, and this
perpetuated the British notion of relations, positioning themselves as a ruling
class/culture and colonial authority over tribal tenure of land and resources. Such
unchecked British colonising discourse is the historical foundation of settler
wealth in the migrants relationship to ownership by land title (Consedine et al
2005).

After the signing of the Treaty the British sought to cultivate loyalty among Maori.
The results of which disadvantaged the Maori lore of mediated relationship and
added to the genocide of some unable to move from their traditional ways of
debate and treaty making (Durie 2005). By 1842, in the need for survival and
pledging loyalty to the English Queen, Maori became described as natives and
were subject to externalized British law. They gradually were divided into un
19

friendly iwi and friendly iwi. Friendly Maori were selected for roles in the 1846
British Resident Magistrate Courts, and became subject to the 1863 New Zealand
Settlement Act which took land away from unfriendly Maori (such as Pai Marire
whom resisted the Crown). 50,000 acres were distributed to friendly' natives,
ultimately furthering suspicion of independent Maori sales with the New Zealand
Company (Tauranga 1860, Kahotea, 2009) (Wairau incident, 1843, Timeline
http://nzhistory.net.nz). The legislation endorsed the discourse of the coloniser,
positioning law as external to the lives of the peoples colonised through
overriding the agreement in Te Tiriti of the Maori world of whanau.

The Crown saw the Treaty as granting exclusive rights to purchase Maori land.
By 1845 Governor Grey claimed a victory centred on his notion of Maori
submission when Heke and Kawitis forces withdrew at Ruapekapeka. The
resulting British government decree (1846) that all Maori land was to be
registered and unused surplus land was to be Crown owned again threatened
Maori relationship. Differences in Crown discourse on the Treaty of Waitangis
status under the law are apparent however in the contrast between a legal case
in which native title was recognised as a right of customary use (Chief Justice
Martin and Justice Redmond in R v. Symonds 1847) with that of mainstream
settler society (see Durie, 1995; ODonoghue, 2003, p.54). When the
administration shifted to a settler government (New Zealand Constitution Act),
tribal Maori became subjected to the individualisation of property ownership.
Resulting from this unwelcome positioning, and following general government
unresponsiveness to Maori, were the New Zealand Wars, in which many Maori
died, and war crimes were committed, the sentiment of this period reflected in the
Treaty being declared a nullity in the infamous judgment of Prendergast (Parata
W. v the Bishop of Wellington (1877)). Such discourses then impacted on what
the settler dominated government agreed as social representations of reality,
20

continued into contemporary social justice relationships of the 1970s (Belich,
1996).

The Waitangi Tribunal (created in 1970 and codified in The Treaty of Waitangi Act
1975), resulted from Maori petitioning government and in its jurisdiction began re
informing the very basis of views on social order during this conservative period.
Various bicultural discourses of the 1980s and 1990s eventually extended this to
the extent where it was noted that all future legislation should regard implications
for recognition of the principles of the Treaty, and government departments were
required to start consulting with Maori. Despite this apparent progress, changes
remained largely rhetoric (Puao Te Ata Tu, 1986) (Durie, 1995) and inequity in
access to resources continued for Maori (Durie, 1995). It should be noted that it
was Maori whom had claimed the unique space for recognition leading to the
creation of the Waitangi Tribunal (1970). These spaces give recognition to the
power relationships in both Te Tiriti and traditional lore (Belich, 1996; Payne,
1997) with hope for specific relationships in which Maori receive equal
consideration with Pakeha, and are able to equally determine the course of this
country (Awatere, 1989 in Yensen et al, pg. 144). The fact that Maori sovereignty
was never ceded, and was affirmed in both the Declaration of Independence and
Te Tiriti, offers an opportunity to delineate the practice of colonisation and to see
how that practice continues to shape social, economic and constitutional conflict
over the past 170 years (Armstrong, 2010). All of this land was known to Maori
prior to 1840, currently only 2 % of this whole remains in Maori hands; that is an
injustice!(Jackson, 2010).

The social work discourse within Aotearoa New Zealand

The social work discourse is informed by that of Aotearoa New Zealand society,
21

where there has been a shift from the philanthropic therapeutic values to the
meaning in post industrial society which frames social services within the
language of modern economic concepts and shapes the social sphere of the
practice (Payne, 2006). Three political poles of post industrial society, of
individual reformist, socialist collectivist, and reflexive therapeutic values, engage
the people and carry their shared social meaning in power relationships, practices
in families, whanau, and within the institutes, statutory and therapeutic
relationships where people participate.(Payne, 2006; Jenkins, 2009, Foucault,
1972)(see Table 1).

Significant changes emerged through the professional association Aotearoa New
Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) in the last decades of the
twentieth-century. Informed by political explanations and seeing interventions in
terms of power relationships (colonising) members found an ethical basis to
develop ways of relating (Jenkins, 2009). For example, ANZASW took on
Aotearoa in its name as an explicit example about its aim for biculturalism, in
which Maori and non-Maori remain in partnership through natural, spiritual and
human dimensions (Ruwhiu, 2001 in ODonoghue, 2003, pg.120). Yet within the
practices shaped within institutions, statutory therapeutic settings, a mono-
cultural process remained wherein policy had become dominated by social
control views in which the context of peoples lives remained largely ignored
(Maharey, 1998).

The recognition of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) (Corrigan, 2000) opened space to
recognise racism and mediate bicultural professionalism (see: Table 1).
Advocacy for Maori self-determination resulted in Maori and non-Maori members
engaging with personal and structural racism in ways enabling of a Maori world,
while mediating the changes to services resulting from the reduction in state
welfare provision in New Zealand (see: Table 1 for themes) (Beddoe & Randal,
22

1994 in Munford et al. 1994 ).

Table 1. Reflection on themes in Social work discourses in
Aotearoa New Zealand.
Period Discourse Issues Ethos
Early Welfare Tradition philanthropy-manaakitanga (Therapeutic) Knowledge(s)

Both indigenous and
Residential
Welfare

Recognition of a social work defined education, training gradually seen as
Profession in task, agency, setting, professional recognition- occupation.
1949-1972 profession (Social order). sought

Consolidation professionalism notions of difference mediate focus on
1973-1986 status distinct from practice standards themes of social justice
accountability & Community Puao Te Ata Tu 1986 ethics, professionalism
(Therapeutic v social order)

Debating Professionalism social work Treaty partnership within mediate profession within
1987-2002 social justice competency assessment new right ideology: Shift
Discourses of & registration from State provision
cost effectiveness Kahukura 1991 to family & community
narrowing role of
social work.
(Transformative-v social order)

Registration Era SWRA marks itself as Competency assessment Bi Culturalism
2003 to present dominant discourse Reg. board assess courses Classical notions v.
(Social order) Voices seeking social
justice, tensions for
divergent protocols
and Associations
(Adapted from Nash, in Connolly & Harms, 2009 p369, Payne 2006).

For the ANZASW, biculturalism as a transformative notion required a shift in
power in its organisation in order for the articulation of a Maori perspective by
Maori people, a centering of Maori in a predominantly non-Maori orientated
organization (Payne, 2006). ANZASW sought to express a bicultural profession
informed by a New Zealand tradition of Te Tiriti. This was then to inform a
bicultural component of social work competency a reflexive therapeutic practice
where worker and profession interact to respond to their social concerns (see
Table 2). ODonoghue (2003) describes Te Tiriti as the foundation of social
justice and human rights in Aotearoa because without this acknowledgment, anti-
23

oppression and anti-discrimination would be irrelevant. Table 2 below outlines
the key features of the bicultural partnership within the ANZASW body involving a
recognition of the two Treaty partners, the Associations commitment to
partnership by sharing of power through rotation of the Presidential role (Maori,
non Maori), in use of space and in process as both analytic and active (McNabb,
1997; ODonoghue, 2003).
Table 2
ANZASW: Present-day arrangements specifying what are bi cultural
partnerships
Maori members able to caucus separate from Tauiwi (non Maori);
The president role alternating between Maori and Tauiwi;
Maori tikanga (philosophy) and kaupapa (way of doing) informing meetings and
hui (so Te Ao Maori is active and analytical in powhiri, waiata, hui making);
Development of the Niho Taniwha competency assessment model which enables
discourses of social work that may enable Maori;
Ensuring Maori panel membership in assessing Tauiwi in Bicultural practice;
Ensuring bicultural responsibilities inform the Code of Ethics;
Code of Ethics translated to Maori language (2008). (Nash, in Connolly& Harms 2009, p 369)

Payne (2006) suggests that relationships represent certain ideologies about how
societies should be, and the push for registration of social workers after 1999
(enabled by the momentum of key social work employers) suggested an ideology
of a transformative profession open to speaking distinctly in informing current
social policy (Payne, 2006), (Maharey, 1998). The establishment of a
competency based membership process in the ANZASW (1990) created a form
of voluntary registration (McNabb, 1997) in which social work accountability
specified Te Tiriti based biculturalism, and proposed personal, structural, and
societal empowerment through effecting changes in this social structure
(ODonoghue,2003), (Blagdon, Taylor, Keall, 1994), (Walker, 1995). This
24

transformation in biculturalism (see: Table 3) also conveyed dissonances about
releasing power. Here the distinctions occur in the discourse development in
terms of what discourses do rather than singularly what they describe. For
example while people spoke of protection of the public, this became interpreted
in the dominant State discourse linked to the State as source for Social Worker
Registration. The traditional and modern State continued contribution within
colonization cannot easily be reconciled with such protection of people (Roy,
2006).
Table 3.1 Analysis and the positioning of people in relationship
Discourses informing SWRA (2003) intent for protection of the public
1. Accountability in relation to whanau, hapu, kin, church, welfare, community
2. S.W accountability as relationship to whanau, church, welfare, community
3. S.W mediating of power in helper role.
4. Workplace prescribes a social workers role, by task (therapeutic, social order).
5. The profession mediates that social order tension both in alignment with State policy, in its
positioning of legitimacy on competency through relationship value of a Maori world view (Rangihau
1987, McNabb 1997, Durie 1995).
6. The social work profession ethics acknowledged racism and sought competency in core practice
standards in its members, Maori as social worker or clients were creators of meaning and knowledge
and sought to enabling a responsibility in which social justice sits in divergent protocols for
representation-see Table 1 (transformative, from which therapeutic, social order modifying and disputing
this) (Payne, 2006, ANZASW Code Ethics
2008).
7. Legislation for Registration applied to S.W lead by MPs, produces SWRA (2003).
From Monoculturalism to Biculturalism

As discourse makes it possible to see the world it also constructs people
(Foucault 1972). For example, the social work discourse in the 1990s shifted
from being mono-cultural towards acknowledging distinction of Maori and finding
partnership with that in seeking biculturalism. A key factor in this shift was the
development within NZASW of competency assessment and the two caucus
structure. As previously mentioned, the changes from NZASW to ANZASW and
25

the shift to referencing the Treaty to Te Tiriti in the ANZASW policy, effected
changes as a socially agreed representation of relationships (Payne, 1997).

NZASW had begun a discourse on competency for social work in the 1980s,
acknowledging opened spaces which specify Maori representation, and
guidance for non Maori in working with Maori. In addition the NZASW was explicit
about what a social worker demonstrated to practice safely (NZASW 1990).
Beddoe & Randall (1994) noted the professional values drew from notions of
individual and group and were informed by philosophy and sociological accounts
of the relationship (Corrigan, 1999). Maori were seen as no longer sitting on the
periphery but repositioned as central; the partnership in Te Tiriti was active and
able to be evident; a living document (O Donoghue, 2003). Research work
resulting from Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) and the formation of The Children Young
Persons and their Families Act (1989) stipulated consultation with whanau, kin
groups. The prescription of this consultation increased the accountability of
social workers to Maori (C.Y.F. 1989). The Turangawaewae conference and the
development of a Maori caucus within the NZASW by 1986 had challenged the
presence of mono-cultural practices in the profession. The resulting greater
recognition of Te Tiriti in the amended constitution of NZASW ensured that both
decision-making and social work practice would be conducted in accordance with
the articles contained in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (NZASW, 1992: 9). This
engagement with dilemmas is important to allow practitioners to recognize and
develop their ethical ways of practice, of relating in power relationships (Jenkins,
2009).

Some educators in social services acknowledge the engagement with difference
prescribed clearly by Maori (Kahukura, 1991, p. 34); and also that engagement
and redress requires transformative action in the social, economic and political
struggle of Maori (Payne, 2006;, Mataira, 1995; Corrigan, 1999). Reflective of
26

this, Maori education sites have begun to provide social work education and
qualifications, and included in this transformation was the practice of sharing of
stories which were embedded in this land, stories other than those based on the
States authority on Te Tiriti (Jackson, 2010).

The ANZASW Code of Ethics (2008) as a professional discourse named social
justice as a value generalised to all social work and marked standards for
professional workers consideration and action in their work, within the varieties of
their context. Its dual focus of responding to specific needs of peoples and
equally to inform society about injustice, generated a language peculiar to
enabling bicultural accountability formed with Maori centrality (see: Table 1).
However when the language is applied without strong Maori centrality (Durie,
1995) the call for registration for social workers, is motivated by a different
meaning of bicultural tokenism, bicultural appropriate, and the debate as to
whom the partners were: for example Maori and Crown or Maori and the later
settlers (Smithers, 2007) (see: Table 3:1). Modernist notions of accountability
and protection of the public as formed from economic rationalism and new
managerialism in the new right ideology (see: Table 2 as assessment, models,
codes) were now languages adopted which in turn positioned the profession to
respond back to management. ANZASW itself sought to respond with notions of
empowerment and antioppressive values to inform the SWR Bill (see: Table 3)
(Corrigan, 1999).

Examining the development of social worker registration

The registration discourse emerged originally as an ANZASW aspiration (at the
Associations formation in 1964), which was put to rest in the late 1970s and
1980s, until it re-emerged in 1994. This occurred with a discussion paper at the
27

request of the ANZASW and then progressed with some vigour from 1998
onwards gaining consensus with members, employers, community and Maori
(Blagdon, Taylor, Keall, 1994, Curson, 1998). To define the professional identity
by defining registration, ANZASW made submissions to the reform of Health
Sector Occupation Regulation Statutes (1997) and described registration
discourse as aligned to competency based assessments and measures (Curson,
1998). Voluntary registration and an inclusive nature to registration were
discussed, with membership imagining active engagement by workers in their
practice (Corrigan, 1999). Major employers such as Child Youth and Family, a
legally mandated service, also supported registration. The Bill emerged from a
consensus between the State and the professional body (Roy 2005, O Brien,
2009); social work registration was regulated.

Te Tiriti O Waitangi in the Social Worker Registration Journey 1998 -2001

The literature leading up to the Social Workers Registration Bill (2001) carries the
continued discourses of both colonisation and decolonisation, with decolonisation
the redress of colonisation (Laenui, 1999). While Te Tiriti as New Zealands
founding document informed ANZASW bicultural practice, the Treaty was to be
considered with all aspects of Pakeha interaction with Maori, and as a symbol of
hope in a shared future (Durie, 1995a; Te Paa, 1998; Fleras & Spoonley, 1999).
It was those social order views (Payne, 2006) with maximum state leverage of its
citizens rights and services (in order for its efficient and continued functioning),
that are evident in shaping the Bill and peoples (limited?) ability to influence
discourses shaping the Act (Roy, 2005). The lead up to the SWR Bill (2001) was
equally a period shaped by social service adaptation to new public sector
regimes. This regime positioned human engagement as a commodity in which
work is constructed as a series of tasks, and service delivery, orientated around
technology, and determined by managerial approaches (Blagdon, et al, 1994)
28

(Nash, 2009) (Payne, 2006).

The task to convey the positions of Te Tiriti, social justice and human rights to the
SWR Bill was to cross diverse value systems that position people and power
distinctly. To consider these required the select committee hearing submissions
on the Bill to agree to give significant weight to the Aotearoa social work tradition
and the integrity of Maori (ODonoghue, 2003) (Curson, 1998) so to redress
oppression and discrimination.

The Social Services Select Committee was to act for the state legislature, to
inform the Registration Act. Familiar with the processes of colonisation, some
Maori viewed registration as devaluing existing Maori social work practice and the
commitment to the Treaty (McNabb, 1997) (Curson, 1998). Others argued that
registration and requiring formal academic study supported accountability in
practice, where the State and its allies legitimize formal knowledge and practice
to evidence a status of competency (Ministry Social Policy, May 2001)
(MacDonald, 1995).

An alternative option for evidencing competency by the reflective practitioner
model (see: McNabb, 1997) would require a practitioners critique of the state,
which is an intimidating prospect, where the state holds powerful allies, and
enables the discourse of the SWR Bill (2001). This is problematic as the same
worker is then directed to engage themselves with evidencing their legitimacy as
(therapeutic, social control) safe practitioners, and to be registered (Payne,
2006). Transformative social work alternatives are not always consistent with
these notions, as they critique social structures of power and knowledge, and
seek the empowerment of oppressed people and the development of and
distribution of contemporary knowledge for all (Hartman, 1992).

29

In the state consultation for registration, The Ministry of Social Policy (MSP
2000), noted concerns about the devaluing of existing Maori social work practice
(MSP, 2000, pg. 4); and that the registration process standardised skills, within a
complex regulating environment reducing real partnership (Mintzberg, 1993).
Following hui, the Ministry concluded that Te Tiriti should be the basis informing
the constitution for the Registration Board, and that a separate registration body
for Maori be available (MSP, 2000, p. 8), maintaining the importance of
competency in Maori tikanga for Maori and non-Maori who work in Maori
communities, with references also drawn with Puao Te Ata Tu 1986 (MSP,
2000, pg. 11).

In summary, given the distinction regarding the proposed SWR Bill in a regulation
function, and noticing it is likely to disadvantage Maori (MSP, 2000), the journey
to social work registration remained shaped by forces of colonisation and
decolonisation processes, and by forces commodifying social practice and social
work views singularly (Laenui, 1999) (Cram, 2001), (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997)
(Pihama, 1993 in Cram, 2001) (Smith, 2005) (Cook, 2008). The art of mediating
requires accepting difference and requires social work to move beyond elevating
compliance as a sole standard. Further accepting difference requires perception,
then power by which to mediate how the state perceives the registration body as
central in the protection and accountability matters towards its citizens (Blagdon,
et al, 1994) (Cheyne, O'Brien, Belgrave, 2000). It also involves an
acknowledgment of tradition in its capacity to mediate with peoples who hold
differing notions to meaningful safe relationships. Difference and working with
these remain critical for ongoing conversations (Smith, 2005) (Belich, 1996).

30

Conclusion

The objective of this literature review was to contextualise the study. This was
achieved by locating it within ways of seeing the world. The initial review
identified the discourse offered in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, its place within Aotearoa
New Zealand in terms of informing social consciousness, law and social work.
The second discourse discusses the development of the profession of social work
within Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly informed by the postmodernist
response shaping social work in post-industrial society (Parton, 1996 cited in
Payne, 1997. The third discourse traces the placement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in
social work registration.

While the literature highlights those discourses that will position social work either
according to Te Tiriti discourse to inform a social consciousness of social work
traditions or not, the following chapter conveys the researchers choice of
methodology with the intent for voices to be identified in collective submission
making to the SWR Bill (2002).

31

Chapter Three Research Methodologies

This chapter outlines the methods used in this research project. It explains
documentary analysis as a methodology, the reason for choosing it, the particular
data collection procedures used, and the process of analysis for comparing and
contrasting the documentary data gathered with the Social Workers Registration
Act (2003) itself. This is followed by discussion of the ethics and challenges of
the research methodology. The conclusion finds that the documentary analysis
method provided an appropriate way to explore the research question once the
researchers assumptions about access to publicly available documents were
overcome.

Documentary analysis

Documentary analysis focuses on the location, categorisation, selection and
analysis of documents (Bell, 2007) (Weber, 1985). This method relies on two
interdependent features, the first being the researchers use of internal criticism to
give a reliable explanation of the authors views within the selected documents
and second, the documents importance and presence within the period under
research. Documentary analysis also involves the consideration of what
documents are included or not included, with the researcher explaining their
choices along with the analysis framework informing their examination of the
content (Bell, 2007). In this study the submissions were produced primarily to
respond to the Social Workers Registration Bill (2001) in attempt to influence the
content of the final Act. As the research process unfolded further questions
concerning the voices held in the submissions and the way they informed the Act
necessitated a consideration of the Select Committee context.
32

Documentary analysis was chosen as it was deemed the best method for
examining the research question of why Te Tiriti is not named in the SWRA
(2003). This methodologys strength in terms of this research project was how it
could be used to investigate and evidence 'what is lost during the policy making
process. For example the methodology can be used to note 'voices' at point A
and then track them at point B by noting their subsequent presence or absence.
In essence, documentary analysis provides a means by which to check document
for what they convey or do not. In this research this analysis explores further
which voices are understood, are hidden and identifies the power plays. Power
can be identified in documentary analysis recorded in everyday speech, in
institutional practices, which is particularly important as they influence this
research (Burr, 2003, Payne, 2006, Walsh Tapiata, 2009).

The recognition of voice in the data requires planning to inform the sourcing,
selection of documents and sensitisation to what is lost as sometimes there is a
hidden power relationship within peoples interactions (Payne 2006). The project
is considered an informed activity. In this study, the submissions tangibly convey
the submitters intent to influence the Select Committees determination
(Winslade, 2002, Foucault, 1972, Walsh-Tapiata, 2009). By being sensitised to
what is lost', this methodologys strength enables those written elements to be
recognised and therefore heard. By applying this sensitisation of critique
(Herman,2002 in Smithers 2007) and researching for Te Tiriti as a discourse to
the documents researched, those indigenous tradition and 'other voices can be
located: they can be heard using a key word search (Burr, 2003, Patton, 2002,
Rangihau, 1987, Puao Te Ata Tu 1986).

In the process of documentary analysis there are always limitations in the location
and analysis of any text (Weber, 1985). Ways of minimising such limitations
33

include: a) the researcher identifies her values, and is critical of them throughout
the process; b) an effort is made to place the documents within context of the
original submitters before being interpreted; c) the researcher openly
acknowledges her interest and bias in the study; and d) her intent that the
submitter voices are not lost, guides the data analysis process.

Any methodology is shaped by the research question. Words and key concepts
must be continually analysed by the researcher to ensure that their original
meanings are retained. The researcher drew upon the literature to inform the
construction of the question so as to locate its context within three points. One,
the published academic work; secondly, the social work relationship to
colonisation; thirdly, indigenous tradition.

Stages of documentary research

According to Bell (2007), the stages of documentary analysis involve moving from
a general overview of the documents to a considered inquiry in which the
collected documents form the raw data (Sheppard, 2005). The considered
inquiry is then applied to the similarities and differences identified within the
documents from which observations and conclusions are derived. The three
types of analysis applied in this study are: content analysis (as in frequency of
words of Te Tiriti), thematic analysis (as generalisation of meanings), and/or
discourse analysis (as systematic creation of what is described). These analyses
arise from drawing themes from the data and then applying a sensitising notion
(ie. Lost Voices) in the examination for common content (termed content
analysis) (Sheppard, 2005). This reductionist approach reduces the mass of the
34

data by making judgments about key themes (thematic analysis) emerging from
the data, and writing them up as common characteristics for that group. Care
taken with exceptions also informed the researcher, this being a part of the
responsibility to honour the writers voice and honour the systematic creation of
discourses (Hartman, 1992). Having overviewed documentary analysis in
general terms one now turns to its application in the present study.

Research Table 3.2
Stages of documentary research

Planning
Sourcing and selection of documents; what is included and what is not.
The nature of the sample selected requires explanation, and the location of units as data in the
study's focus.
Consideration needs be applied to content and bias in reporting (as in racial stereotyping)
The recording of units within the sample (Appendices 1, 2, 3).

The units are placed in the context of the terms before being interpreted (this is important to the
research credibility). The context includes consideration of boundaries around the project,
budget, and the research question (analysis).
Framed recommendations emerge.

The research procedures

The procedures used consisted of identifying a sample of documents and placing
these documents in a context. Sourcing and accessing the documents chosen
for analysis then followed.

35

The sample

The sample of documents was drawn from the submissions made to the Social
Services Select Committee in respect of the SWR Bill (2001). A decision was
made early in the project to focus on a sample of the collective submissions in
order to remain within the scope of the research project. The focus on the
collective submissions also facilitated examination of the Select Committees
handling of submissions. It became apparent that the collective submissions had
been counted and considered as equal to a submission from an individual.
Therefore the focus on examining collective submissions as data is a distinct
consideration of validating those. The consideration of those submissions from
Maori (see Appendix 1 - Submissions 5, 6, 12, 14, 28, 30) were not distinguished
in kind from those of the Commercial Press. This example in Appendix 1
described access into the materials of Discipline Tribunals as primarily important
(see, Appendix 1, Submission 1).
The Bill is primarily about social work accountability as a profession. The
profession shaped by social work relationship within therapeutic,
transformational, and discourses concerned for social order at a meta level
(Payne, 2006). The accountability of the profession sought to enable that of
traditional Te Tiriti based vision of justice (Puao Te Ata Tu 1986); at times this
accountability is also claimed as integral to generic social work (Corrigan, 1999).
Such visions for justice require that significance in weighting should be afforded
to Maori views of social justice, rather than the equalizing of Maori submissions
with the Commercial Press interest as was seen.

The framing of these samples within context is then critical to the methodology
(Weber, 1985) as well as understanding the submissions within this writers
definitions. It is intended that this will distinguish the process and the way the
36

findings are understood, from that which informed the SWRA (2003), to ensure
that voices of the submission are recognised and acknowledged rather than
being viewed as merely one submission amongst many.

Data identification and collection

The next stage was sourcing the documents, their collection, and the
identification of the relevant sequences within them.

Sourcing
Forty submissions were selected, photocopied and mailed by the Parliamentary
Information Service as the researcher could not physically access Parliament. In
addition to these forty, three other submissions were sourced off the Internet as
publicly available material.

Collection
The 'forty-three papers gathered were categorized and numbered. Related
sheets were secured to each numbered submission. In this step the documents
legitimacy was explored, in regard to whether they were collective or individual
submissions.

Selection
Ten submission speech papers were collated to fit with other master submissions
which they were part of, and three removed being classified as individual
submissions which fell outside the representative sample. The remaining thirty
37

submissions were summarised, which added to the researchers knowledge.
Such framing of the samples within context is critical to the methodology (Weber
1985) and seeking to understand the submissions from the writers perspective
distinguished the process and the way the findings are understood [from the
Select Committees process] (Appendix 1).

Next the material was scanned for key words related to Te Tiriti. The scanning
for the sensitizing notion of Te Tiriti (1840) included looking for linking references
to Te Tiriti. These can be found in contemporary discourses around naming
research documents of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) and Kahukura (1991), as well as
in submissions. These were also located in the Select Committee notes and the
Bills explanatory notes in reference to Maori. From these exercises the framed
recommendations were produced.

The gathering of data added to the researchers knowledge by locating the
voices, identifying what they said, and examining their influence on the resulting
legislation. More questions occur as knowledge of the subject deepens in
application of the sensitizing notion related to Te Tiriti, Puao Te Ata Tu (1986),
Kahukura (1991) (Tosh 2002 in Bell, 2007 p 127). The process was recorded in
a timeline (see Appendix 2). As the researcher I was mindful of leading the
reader through the project in a meaningful manner. In leading the reader forward ,
the structure of this research links the reader to the key comparison and contrasts
in the page layout (see Appendix 3 and Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 below summarizes the research procedure and illustrates how the
process developed from identifying reference (or lack of) to Te Tiriti, to Puao Te
Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura 1991, ANZASW Code of Ethics Bicultural Code, and
support for (or lack of) social workers registration as a means of achieving safe
38

practice.

Table 3. 3 Steps in the research procedure
1. From 43 papers originally collected, 30 were collective submissions and
became the focus exercise following a primary analysis by scanning for
references to The Treaty or Te Tiriti o Waitangi (see Appendix 1).
2. Data reconsidered in context of Te Tiriti gathered in from the submissions in
reference to Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) and ANZASW Code of
Ethics Bicultural practice (Maori, Tangata whenua, etc) (see Appendix 2).
3. Consideration was given to the information the authors originally wanted to
impart, such as support for the draft Bill, conditional support, or refusal (see
Appendix 1 and 3). The authority of the writers was noted by ethnicity, gender,
workplace, and profession in Appendices 1 and 3.
4. Steps 1-4 were then applied to the SWRA 2003. Primarily, analysis sought to
locate the Treaty or Te Tiriti o Waitangi (See Appendix 2)
5. This was followed by a search for the location of Te Tiriti with reference to
Puao Te Ata Tu, Kahukura, and the ANZASW Code of Ethics serving as a
framework for analysis of what is said and not said.
6. The researcher then compared and contrasted data from the 30 submissions,
the SWRA, context documents (e.g Select Committee notes, Explanatory Notes
of the Governmental Bill) and the SWRA. Data was entered on Appendix 3.
Data analysis within contexts

Analysis of word frequency and context enabled the study to develop (Bell 2007,
Weber 1985, Walsh Tapiata, 2009). In the subsequent exercise of comparison
and contrast between the submissions and the Act, the data was further framed,
39

firstly in terms of the inclusion of material from the submissions in the Act, the
Select Committee commentary and Governmental Bill notes. Secondly, in
relation to a context through references to frequency of the words Te Tiriti (1840),
Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahakura (1991). The data analysis was extended to
references to Maori, in order to be mindful of what the original writers had
intended to convey: that Maori are people of the land; that the research
recognises and responds to this. This form of listening and validation by the
researcher was to ensure that she was sensitive to the methodology as a way to
identify and examine the influence of voice (see: Table 3.4) (Winslade, 2002).

Research Table 3.4 Te Tiriti, Law and Lore

40

Research Table 3.4 Te Tiriti, Law and Lore

41

Context and bias
The documents were examined for the information the authors had intended to
convey specifically in relationship to Te Tiriti). That unwitting evidence did
emerge in underlying positioning was unintentionally revealed by the language
they used. In the absence of reference to Te Tiriti in the context of the Act,
related material in the Select Committee recommendations and Government
explanation was also considered (Bell, 2007). Appendices 1, 2 and 3 illustrate
the processes used to make judgment about the key themes as well as common
characteristics that produced points for the researcher to examine her
assumptions, and thereby increase her knowledge.
The credibility and rigor of the procedures was evident by the way that the
researcher attempted to preserve and understand the submissions in their
context (Patton, 2002). In addition, her use of an overt and explicit analytical
framework derived from feminism and antiracist theory meant that the
interpretative lenses applied to data were obvious and the analysis offered open
to critique. (Patton, 2002).
Overall, the procedures used in this study were responsive to word frequency
and enabled understanding of power through discourse. The data was seen as
discourse (Winslade & Monk, 2000, Drewery, 2005). The counting of documents
as data offered a reliable context (Appendix 3 scoped this out for an easier visual
impression for the reader). Consideration was given repeatedly to how this
methodology was used and informed data choice and suitability, moving in a
sense between the studys methodology, data collection, and content analysis
for consistency to increase understanding of the research question. The
methodology suited the researcher intention. This was not only to honour points
of view yet also in seeking patterns and themes across stories and submissions.
This was reasoned as a way in which to maintain a perspective where the
research process gained voice as understood in the context of the making of
42

meaning (Patton, 2002).
Ethical Considerations
A low risk application was submitted to the Massey University Human Ethics
Committee, following a peer review process of the application. The study was
determined to be of low ethical risk, because it was an analysis of publicly
available documents and did not involve direct work with human participants.
Other ethical matters considered were those applied to the intent for
minimisation of harm and mindfulness of the student social worker and any
potential or perceived conflict of interest in terms of her ANZASW role that are
briefly discussed.
To research the absence of perspective in the SWRA (2003) involved
considering work from colleagues within the social work profession, and required
being mindful of ones analysis and critique of relationships with members of the
profession who had made submissions. Ideas cannot be independent of the
characteristic social positions of the human beings who use them to
communicate with and understand others (see: Table 3,4) (Payne, 1997). That
said, the documentary analysis approach used worked with material created for
public knowledge, and depersonalised the study to a degree by which it was
possible to objectively work on the question(s) raised in the original research
proposal. The researcher only analysed collective submissions, a decision that
protected any individual being singled out for their views.

Challenges of Methodology
There were two challenges the researcher dealt with during the course of the
study. Firstly the availability of documents and secondly, that not all
submissions were electronically available became challenges to the planned
work.
43

The researchers assumption that the documents were publicly available (due to
being part of the law making process) was challenged, because their availability
was not linked to accessibility, thereby challenging the researchers
assumptions of availability, accessibility and public accountability. For example,
to access paper copies of the submissions required the researcher literally to
visit the Parliament Information Service in Wellington. A negotiated compromise
was found, with the student required to cover all costs for copies of the
documents to be released. When the researcher offered $40 randomly selected
copies of the material were sent. Some submissions were electronically available
for the researchers access to make up any shortfall. Therefore, this selection
represent those available samples of collective submissions received by the
select committee.
The second challenge was that the researcher sought to ensure the credibility
and rigor of the research. Focus for the researcher developed on awareness of
preserving data, observing and identifying themes by noting exceptions and
recording both the process and context of the analysis undertaken (Patton, 2002).
As context informs analysis, it is acknowledged that another researcher may well
arrive at different conclusions, due to differing individual interpretations of data.
There is a subjective nature to both recognising ideas (Payne, 1997) and
understanding how knowledge reflects important social forces, such as how
power is used in social relations (Spender, 1985). The researchers capacity as
both non Maori and as a student to form research, equally shaped the work (see:
Table 3. 4).

Conclusion
This chapter has described how the methodology was applied, why such
methodology was chosen, the methodology with regard to the research question,
44

as well as the practicalities of the methodology. The document analysis was
applied to submissions to the Bill, and to the final Act itself.This chapter has also
discussed the procedures used in selecting, sourcing and analyzing the
submission, together with key sensitizing notions related to Te Tiriti.

The final stage of analysis involved comparing and contrasting the content of the
submissions with the final SWRA. (2003). This critical analysis viewed Te Tiriti
as knowledge, creation of knowledge is a form of power, understanding
traditions of power for Maori beyond the Nation state are important
considerations for social justice within the New Zealand tradition (O Donoghue,
2003). Analysis of processes by which knowledge from the Nation state, the
submissions of both professionals and of Maori enables understanding of this
major piece of social work legislation.
These methods develop from the acknowledgment of world views as ways to
recognize ways of thinking about knowledge. This is in order to be sensitive to
ways integrity may diminish power relationships (Payne, 1997); what was
seemingly lost from the legislation is further diminished in the many practices
affected by the legislation.
By the methodology developed here the researcher sought to give witness to
submitters voices. By gathering detail the researcher evidenced the voices
intent to influence the Act. Document analysis reveals the clear numbers of
submitters references to Te Tiriti. While this chapter noted the limitations of
document availability and the subjective nature of understanding power and loss,
the chosen methodology served to identify and examine the influence of voice,
and equally examine a critique of power relations. These understanding shape
the subsequent results chapter.

45

Chapter Four The Submission Voices

This chapter reports the results of the documentary analysis of the submissions
made to the Social Service Select Committee on the SWR Bill (2001) by locating
the voices of the collective submitters, and considering whether their voices were
lost during the bill. The voices present within the submissions will be introduced
first, followed by an analysis of themes found in the submissions. Then the
official response to Te Tiriti and the Social Workers Registration Act (2003) will be
considered with regard to some meanings and implications. Possible alternatives
to this response will then be explored.

The Submitters Voices

Within the submissions studied, the writers identified themselves by their names,
and by their workplace or profession. Appendix 1 details the submitters identity,
and Appendix 2, 3 identifies the scope of some themes in the submissions.
Within the group of writers who were identified by their workplace, variation of
submissions included that of the Commercial Press Union (Appendix 1
Submission 1), student social workers (Submission 5), Maori women therapists
(Submission 6), Mental Health providers (Submission 7), and The National
Assembly for Peoples with Disabilities (Submission 22). Four groups of
submitters located their identities through race and ethnicity, Maori as citizens
and as of iwi/hapu (Spoonley, in Fleras & Spoonley, 1999),while others identified
through gender. Ten submitters located their authority on the social work
accountability in Aotearoa by acknowledging their regard for the Maori world and
46

tradition (having named Puao Te Ata Tu 1986, Kahukura, 1991). See Table 4, as
represented also in Appendix 3.

Submission
Number
Refer TOW Submission Writer Views Context Notes
1 w/ prof. as authority S 0
2 2 Te Tiriti I as authority Support/likely to
proceed
0
3 1 Te Tiriti we, prof. S 0
4 4 Te Tiriti
Ref
we, prof. S 0
5 8 Te Tiriti we, ethnicity Not support Puao Te Ata Tu
6 Tangata whenua,
Pacifica, women
Not support 0
7 1 Te Tiriti we S 0
8 we S 0
9 we S 0
10 9 Te Tiriti we S Puao Te Ata Tu
Kahukura

Kahukura

13 we S 0
14 2 Te Tiriti prof. /Tangata whenua S 0
17 1 Te Tiriti w/ prof. as authority S 0
19 we S 0
20 we S 0
22 we S 0
24 I/ my office S 0
25 8 Te Tiriti we S Puao te ata tu
Kahukura

26 we S 0
27 organization S 0
28 Roopu Not support Puao te ata tu
Kahukura

29 1 Te Tiriti we S Kahukura
30 20 Te Tiriti Maori, roopu S 0
0
SWR Bill, S C 6 Te Tiriti we 0 12 Ref
Maori
SWR Bill, Ex
Notes
0 18 Ref
Maori
SWRA(2003) 0 9 Ref
Maori
Prof.=professions

47

The submitters could be grouped by roles (see Appendix 1):
four social work education providers,
13 social work professional groups (three with mental health specialisation),
one student group, four social service agencies,
three community advocates (including advocacy for peoples with disabilities,
children, and those with mental health needs),
one from Maori women therapist group,
one representing a commercial press union, one representing early childhood
education,
one representing the National Council of Women,
and one from the national Stopping Violence Service.
As collective submitters their interest in the Bill generally endorsed registration
(27/30 submitters describing registration as both :Standard setting in terms of
quality in practice and including the qualifier of that registration having due regard
to Te Tiriti (see Submission 7, Appendix 1).
For example, members of the profession of social workers gave significance to
registration being informed by relationships arising within Te Tiriti, informed by
both reparation for past grievances, and as offering possibilities for that
relationship (Appendix 1, Submissions 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25,
28, 29, and 30). Writers who identify as tangata whenua, as iwi/hapu members
refer to their peoples values informing their relationship to Treaty partnership
(Appendix 1 Submission 5), naming the Registration Boards obligation to Maori,
and to Treaty articles of Maori self determination (Appendix 2, see 2, 5, 15, 28).
Writers also identified a potential disabling effect of registration on service users,
48

where additional cost of registration may inhibit access to a registered social
worker (Appendix 1 Submission 20). It is noted that registration was indeed
being identified as a cost (rather than, for example, as an investment in
accountability) indicating how economic systems interact within the shaping of
professional registration (Payne, 2006).
General themes of support are present in the submissions, but all submitters
requested specific recommendations. Many specified that the Treaty inform the
eventual Act and named examples of this informing in the traditions of Puao Te
Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991). Of the three submissions not supporting
registration, two specifically named the Bills exclusion of Te Tiriti, as the reason
for their opposition (Appendix 1, Submissions 5 & 28), (Appendix 2, b).
The remaining submission suggested that registration would not address the
problems that were purported to be remedied by the proposal. Specific cautions
were noted in regards to the subjectivity of government, and the social workers
professional association holding the capacity to potentially discriminate against
Maori in the registration process (Appendix 1, Submission 6).
Noteworthy is that concern was raised that registration if coupled with a
monocultural bias (i.e. eurocentricity), would perpetuate a perceived personal,
institutional and societal racism in New Zealand. One example of this was
identified in the Children Young Persons and their Families service (CYFS)
having failed their obligation to Maori under The Treaty principles (Appendix 1,
Submission 2).

Significant numbers of these submissions (19 of the 30 submissions) explicitly
sought to have Te Tiriti included in the Act, or given greater recognition within it
(see Appendix 2, d & Appendix 3). Of these 19 submissions, seven named Te
Tiriti in the context of Puao Te Ata Tu (1986). A further three submissions named
49

Te Tiriti in the context of the document Kahukura (1991) as marking a key
difference between social work in Aotearoa and that of overseas practice (see
Appendix 3). A series of writers clearly stated that the Bills current form failed to
represent Maori values as Treaty partners (Appendix 1, Submission 5), and that
it did not fulfil its obligation to Maori, or to the Treaty articles of Maori self
determination (Appendix 2, points 2, 5, 15, 28) see Appendix 1, Submissions 3, 4,
7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30).

The content of the submissions selected

The submissions selected covered the writers notions of support (or not) for the
proposed Act, and if supportive then which key points should inform the SWRA
(2003). While the submissions selected named support for the registration of
social workers (either willingly or as a fait accompli), every submission studied
requested specific inclusions to enable the intent of the SWR Bill. A generalised
pattern was identified in the submissions referencing Te Tiriti by name, or by
related materials, in that each sought to align social work registration with Te Tiriti
tradition as a source to inform that practice. (See Appendix 3).

In 20 of the 30 submissions, Te Tiriti was named for inclusion in the proposed
legislation, particularly in the context of not betraying indigenous social work
tradition (Appendix 1, Sub. 10) (Appendix 2, pg.2, d). Of the submissions which
specifically named Te Tiriti, seven referred to this in the context of Puao Te Ata
Tu (1986), (Appendix 2, pg. 2, e), including one stating that to omit Te Tiriti in a
Bill for social workers is incomprehensible (Appendix 1, Submission 5). Seven
submissions named Te Tiriti within the transformative context of Kahukura 1991
(Appendix 2, pg. 2, f) with references that this inclusion would mark the key
difference between social work in Aotearoa New Zealand and that in overseas
jurisdictions (Appendix 3, Submission 10). These contexts distinguish their
50

notions of Te Tiriti from that given by the Crown by drawing from the submitters
practice and discourse of what Te Tiriti is, and where it is located in the
framework of Aotearoa New Zealand (Jackson, 2010).

Writers worked collectively for 30 submissions. Those writers identified as
significant from practice or experience to inform the Act (Appendix 1). Of these,
three submissions responded with an outright no to registration as a means to
achieve the intent of the Act, as it would not decrease existing accountability
issues, increase public confidence, or obtain an acceptance of culturally based
qualifications (Summary of Submission). 27 submissions requested an explicit
inclusion of Te Tiriti in the proposed Act (Appendix 3): specifying that to omit
reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in a Bill for Social Workers appears
incomprehensible (Appendix 1, Submission 5). By drawing from current practice
in the social service industry (where for example, Health Board audits explicitly
requires relationship to Te Tiriti), it was proposed that, likewise, Te Tiriti should be
included in the Acts Purpose as well as being present throughout the Act itself
(Appendix 1, Submission 21). The ANZASW submission explicitly argues that all
people registered under the Act be required to have regards for, and act in a
manner consistent with, the provisions and principles of Te Tiriti (Appendix 1,
Submission 30). Explicit training in Te Tiriti was identified as a requirement (in
seven submissions) and Te Tiriti based representation be required for members
of the Social Work Registration Board. Some submitters described the Bill as a
backward step which will further disadvantage Maori both as social workers and
clients in its present form and will simply continue cultural practices of culturally
incompetent Pakeha working with Maori (Submission 5, pg. 1, Appendix 1).

That this is seen as a backward step ,described as the singularity with which the
Crown applies Te Tiriti in practice (Jackson, 2010) appears to again shape how
submitters were to be heard that is dismissive of Te Tiriti in the consultation
51

process.
The official response to the submitters voices by the Select Committee and
Parliament

Coverage of the Select Committees report and the remainder of the Acts
passage follow. In sequence the researcher offers description of the associated
parliamentary speeches with the proposed Act and the relation to Te Tiriti. This
includes the minority Green Party view highlighted in Sue Bradfords speech in
the Bills second reading. No options however, other than the Crowns
application of Te Tiriti appear to shape how the responses to the submitters were
heard (Jackson, 2010). The Bills path through the legislation process is
described here in (A) SWRB Select Committee Commentary: (B) SWR Bill and
(C) SWRA

Firstly, the Select Committees report on the Bill showed strong support for the
legislation. The Select Committees response to the 37 submissions was in the
form of a summary, which emphasised that 30 submissions had expressed
general support for the Bill, and that strong support was given for the concept of
registering social workers. The summary of submissions identified them as
recognising that the Bill 'failed to confront the implications of the Treaty of
Waitangi'. These specific concerns were then dealt with in the body of the
substantive report (Summary of Submissions, 19th March 2002).

That the report on the eligibility for registration of New Zealand qualified workers,
notes that qualifications should include training in working with Maori (pg. 5) with
specific reference to amending clauses 98, 99 (of the SWR Bill). These
amendments refer to the needs of Maori as tangata whenua, and that the Board
should appoint a representative of Maori (p 15). The Bill itself is described as
containing clauses with specific reference to meeting the needs of Maori, where it
52

is stated that it is not common for the Treaty of Waitangi to be included in
statute; that where Te Tiriti is included (this involves physical and land based
resources) the Treaty establishes a relationship between Crown and Maori. In
contrast the proposed Bill ...'is a framework of standards for all social workers.
The Treaty is therefore described as not related to the Bill as it is not about
'providing services, but rather about setting standards for individual social
workers.

Green Party member Sue Bradfords speeches at the first and second readings
focus on two concerns (from Parliamentary debates, 2002). Ms Bradford
identifies that her party strongly supports an overdue social work regulatory
framework. The Green Partys also indicated its reservations in that the Bill lacks
specific reference to Te Tiriti, and lacks reference to specific obligations of the
Crown in terms of this relationship. Ms Bradford stated that due to groups such
as ANZASWs commitment at the Bills late stages with reluctance regarding the
omission of Te Titiri from the Bill, the Party felt it was unable to pursue the matter
further without relevant community backing (Parliamentary debate,2002).
References were noted of the Select Committee responding to provision for Maori
as tangata whenua, distinct from response to Pacific Island people described as
ethnicities, and that an advisory committee was to ensure the views of tangata
whenua were made available.

The SWR Bills explanatory note did not name Te Tiriti. The explanatory note
(held in Clause 98 of Act) identified that the Board was to ensure an integral and
ongoing priority for four references. These references argued for inclusion of
Maori as tangata whenua (focusing on Maori aims and aspirations, appropriate
involvement). There was however little subsequent direction for enacting the
centralisation of this power sharing and that partnership was to be integral and
ongoing priority in the SWR Act (2003). This lack of direction appeared to cloud
53

further any intended focus.

Mention of employment of Maori, and other views that the Tribunal has enough
people who represent Maori, made six references in total. In the Bill itself fulfilling
the focus on active enabling of tangata whenua, the Board was to specify
inclusion of Maori representation (pg. 71) (Schedule 1, 41, 3,).This required that
any Committees constituted would ensure the views of Maori (pg 84). Further
focus was given in that the Board was to act as a good employer so recognising
the aims and aspirations of Maori (Schedule 1, 50; 2,d notes), inclusive of the
employment and involvement of Maori (Schedule 1, 3, pg. 87).This is recorded in
twelve references. In summary, the Bill itself held six Te Tiriti references, and
twelve references to Maori however apparently as outcomes. Importantly no
analysis within the Bill process checked these accountability in their immediate
application or indeed their wider ability. The wider ability of the intention for the
SWR Act(2003) can be argued that this extended to reframe the tradition of the
States centrality to one that may enable a Binational entity (for example, where
by Maori citizenship and hapu, iwi membership mediate social meanings (Fleras
& Spoonley, 1999)).

Following the progression of the Bills path through the legislative process to the
SWRA (2003), research indicates that while there were nine references to Maori,
there were no references to Te Tiriti (Appendix 3). In the SWRA (2003), Te Tiriti
was not named. However, in the Act the Board has named responsibility to
Maori (9 references) (Part two, Section 6, c.1 (pg. 10), Section 7, a, 1(pg. 11));
Section 13, b, iv A (pg. 14)
: competent to practice with Maori; (In Section 66, 3, b (pg. 42)) that it is
desirable (verses essential?) for Maori to be represented on committee.
Again, The Act names that the obligations to ensure the aims and aspirations
are met in the relationship with Maori (Section 100, 1 (pg. 62)) are noted in three
54

references but are not detailed in any power shift so enabling a partnership or
relationship informed by Te Tiriti (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999).
How the voices in the submissions were received

The research question(s) Lost Voices, Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA
(2003) locates themes in those submissions studied and the Treaty as central in
social work traditions (Puao Te Ata Tu 1986). Te Tiriti languages how peoples
may relate and be, within a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code of Ethics
2008) (Spender, 1980). Submitters, not the Committee, noted that it is the
sensitising notion in the stories embedded in practice around the words 'Te Tiriti'
that are key, in that they dont just describe but perform (create) the relational
principles whereby people are seen, recognised in relationships (Winslade,
2002) (Drewery, 2005) (Jackson, 2010) (see: Table 3.4 exploring different
relationship traditions that inform distinct notions of Law and Lore). It is the
discourse of Te Tiriti that is recognised by submitters as conveying powerful
discourses, which are different notions to those sanctioned in the Crowns
interpretation (Foucault, quoted by Winslade, 2002, Faye, 1993).

Themes
1. Two thirds of the 30 collective submissions, while supporting registration,
qualified this by requesting recognition of Te Tiriti.
2. The Bills lack of regard to the reference to Te Tiriti was challenged by
some submitters who stated it was a backward step further
disadvantaging Maori, and simply that it enables a continuation of
culturally incompetent Pakeha behaviour (Appendix 1, Submission 5).
These themes were silenced.
The significance of Te Tiriti in social service tradition was raised as informing both
55

just and safe bicultural social work, and informed this tradition in which 'to see
the world of registration'. That this was not conveyed reduces the mutually
created relationship between social workers and the legislation, legislation and
Te Tiriti, legislation and Maori, and legislation and the people of Te Tiriti. The
potential of people as participants in conversations and frameworks that produce
meaning in their lives has effectively been diminished. The Select Committee, in
locating itself as almost passive by its criteria as standard setting, introduces
another discourse and reduces its obligation of hearing the historical context of
the submitters voices (Select Committee notes, March 2002).
The proposal is that words clearly act upon people, and position people
(Winslade, 2002, Webber Dreadon, 1999) and their professional identities. If
words become reinscribed (the code of meaning of the word is altered)
(Drewery, 2005) then the experience for submitters seemingly becomes an
experience of subjugation. For example, social workers (and practices) are
reformed as subjects; the discomfort of reformatting is part of the constituted
effect within the regulation of social work discourse, affecting those participants
(and practices), rendered now as non-participants in their own lives (Drewery,
2005, Walsh-Tapiata, 2009). This positioning does not provide any relational link
for submitters whereby there is opportunity for reengagement as equals
(Winslade, 2002) (Appendix 1 Submission 21). The submitters however had
clearly named examples (to evidence their submissions points), such as Maori
self-determination was to drive delivery of all processes, and was to be evident
in the Boards make up. There appeared no space for inclusivity (Corrigan,
1999). Rather the centralisation assumed in the States position with Registration
centres its knowledge as the measure, and repositions other ways of knowing
(as that of the relational world established by Te Tiriti) outside its centrality. How
can workers now locate new spaces for engagement (Drewery, 2005, Seed
Pihana, 2005)?

56

Analysis

Positioning, in a discursive analysis, identifies that words position people into
certain power relationships (Harre & Davies, in Winslade, 2002); that power is not
singularly allocated but rather is mediated from multiple points in a relationship.
For example, the SWRA (2003) implicitly involves inequalities (Foucault, 1972).
For myself as the social worker and researcher I found power in words when they
connect to experience. By reference to the words Te Tiriti as a way of framing,
and structuring relationships for me this conveys what and how the profession
and those using social services can expect equality in their experience there as
based on acknowledging and respecting the difference of Maori and non Maori
(Consedine & Consedine, 2005). This mediates the social work experience so as
to shape and modify social workers in that tradition or conceptual framework
(Denzin, 1978 in Patton, 2002, Walsh Tapiata, 2009). For example, Submission
20 requires the Tribunal to be fully responsive to Maori process (Appendix 1), yet
it is someone most likely from out side specific hapu who acts confirming
registration to hapu members Hence, the discourse is already shaped around
positioning that fails to respect diversity in hapu relationships, and those between
iwi Maori. The words additionally create positioning, and un-critiqued, remain that
by which we speak ourselves into existence (Davies in Winslade, 2002). The
positioning evident in use of the language of ethnicity invites positioning of
participants as Paheka and iwi (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). This is represented in
one collective submission (Appendix 1 Submission 5).

As the researcher I considered how critique may apply in the context in which
historical notions and the future possibilities interaction upon contemporary
discourses. In this critique the process of submissions to the Bill were examined
and do reflect a history of non Maori State failure to respond to that sensitising
57

proffered in Te Tiriti. The State by ignoring the depth of diversity continue to
implement disadvantage upon Maori world views. These also are actions that
mitigate recognition and understanding of the duality of colonisation and
decolonisation as positioning occurring in everyday life (Jackson, 2010, Webber-
Dreadon, 1999, Laenui, 1999). The process here fails the submissions of Maori
as tangata whenua. The resultant SWR Bill submission process silences that
tradition by responding instead to the notions of social control. In specifically
seeking the regulation and control of social work the art and science of caring for
people is reframed. Social work is in danger of becoming commodified under the
terms only of the nation state ( Payne, 2006)(Roy 2006).

Of all work submitted 19 submissions asked for recognition of Te Tiriti in the Bill.
Yet the final Bill, within recognition of specifics which inform Maori self
determination, this being whanau, hapu and iwi ignores Maori self determination.
By whanau, hapu, iwi not specifically being represented in the make up of the
Select Committee (Appendix 1, Submission 2, 5, 28) further voices were silenced
in the shaping their own professional reality through the Bills provisions. The
effect of this has been the implication of a personal and collective silencing in
terms of the structural power of the Board and SWRA (2003). This practice then
undermines the social justice notions of the profession (ANZASW Principles 4.1,
4.2, 2008). If unaddressed the implications are the continued undermining of
Maori, of relationship (Jackson, 2009), simultaneously the professions
professional integrity.

Feminism and anti-racist theories propose that by the privileged assumption of
themselves as the norm (Spender, 1985), (Waldegrave & Tamasene, in Munford
& Nash, 1994), the resultant silencing perpetrates a subjugated people who are
now identified through the Bills redistribution of power in registered and
58

unregistered workers. Secondly, while this legislation produces a registration
status, the legislation is aligned and its process justified by authority assumed by
its association to the State. From this alliance social work membership (another
alliance) is generated by that group value of compliance evidenced by obedience.
That generation for example, occurs where registered social workers are
preferred candidates in governmental employment. Further, by framing the SWR
Bill without sensitisation to the submitters concerns, no space exists to raise
questions to distinguish how the policy actually impacts on peoples (Burr, 2003).
A third silencing is reducing workers ability to critique the power structures
evident in their own lives. It is in raising the lost voices through the data that
further choices may be enabled to counter such exclusion (Winslade, 2002).

The implications for the Social Workers Registration Act (2003), meanings,
alternative possibilities.

The SWR Bill was to inform what is accountable social work. That commitment
when not aligned substantively within Te Tiriti traditions strays from social equity
within that tradition. The ability of state registered social workers to speak then
into notions of decolonizing power appears strained as they need to speak
against the State and its Act which gives them their professional status.

The Bill emerged within the macro context of reformat of political, economic,
moral and cultural interplays in a Nation State (Fleras and Spoonley, 1999). A
notion of The singular State, its peoples and structures, similarly seeks to
reformat the resurgence in notions of Biculturalism and Binationalism by
subjugating ways of speaking. This actively reproduces and perpetuates
relationships of unequal power (Hartman, 1992) (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999) (Roy,
59

2006). A consideration of these implications and meanings are now discussed.

Submitters were silenced. By the words of submitters not longer contributing to
the development of bills and Acts so words become devoid of contributing to
community and professional meaning. A fundamental divide occurs in the
maintenance of democracy by ordinary people. This has significant links to
discourses of democracy.

The very erosion of democracy occurs world wide through the Nation State
positioning its population in widespread compliance to its powers across many
neo liberal economies (Roy, 2006).There are significant changes occurring in
political process. That the tradition of submission writing informing a bill shaping
accountable social work is rendered silenced could appear incomprehensible if
wider shifts in civil society, law, free trade where not also being reframed by
global forces of greed and control. Significant in all of these situation is the
realignment of traditions informing meaning making in peoples lives, and this
informing social equity and social justice (Appendix 1, Submission 5)). Because
of this the subjugation of knowledge, and the unfair positioning of the social
worker, diminishes the logical link between the personal as political. This
subjugation then links to the practice of social work in disempowered and
marginalised communities, where the oppressed learn to claim their own voices
and experiences as places of knowing and integrity is key to their political
transformation (Hartman, 1992) (Payne, 2006). As Registration reposition Maori
social workers to values other than their own (Webber Dreadon, 1999), so
workers may disassociate from the traditions of their own practice (and voice).
Those splits may be made evident in politicised members, (who do not subjugate
their knowing) moving away from the current professional bodies (ANZASW,
SWR Board)in order to enact their accountability in a way commensurate with an
original intent of the SWRA (2003).
60

The SWR Bill, the SWRA (2003), and Te Tiriti informing ANZASW Code of
Practice contravene each other, rendering different meanings to terms such as
social worker (Winslade, 2002). This, while unaffected by submitters (who
suggest the Bill as mindless in not acknowledging Maori), parallels the colonisers
own mindlessness (in its own assumption of centrality). The implications of this
process being unaddressed in the unchanged SWRA (2003) continues to
colonise because it name standards. Many are outside of hapu, iwi(Webber-
Dreadon 1999). The term ,social workers shifts and becomes reformatted
around registeredsocial work. It is a small shift to sense its being consumed and
positioned into a master culture (Ryder, 2009), (Appendix 1, Submission 5). A
further discussion will explore these shift from words and meanings.

The formation of this Act produces unequal relationships of power. Even though
the Board is supposed to represent Maori, its determining the means of exchange
and negotiation of opportunity, can drive the repositioning of oneself, Maori,
women. If one is not aligned with the State, then one can be re-positioned as the
other, and therein not central in shaping registration.

This reflects the power inequity of patriarchy discussed in our introduction. By
studying the submissions and the formation of the SWRA (2003), the inherent
positionings are worthy of notice. One example is the validating in witness
bearing by peoples in their own experience, and how opportunity for this impacts
on defining them (Hartman, 1992).

Social work draws on a fierce tradition yet in the face of the registration much is
silenced I cant say who I am unless you agree Im real (Baraka cited in
Hartman, 1992, pg. 483). In this way, Fleras & Spoonley argue shared language
enables recognition of anothers positioning. The language of Maori carries
assumption and positions within it that are distinct. Here iwi, hapu, expression
61

can be drawn to inform the speaker and listener (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). The
positioning that lies currently in being registered in relationship to relational and
inter-subjective traditions (Ryde, 2009) remains an important subject in further
study.

Some of the meanings evident from the findings

In summary, the assumptions unchecked within the SWRA (2003) hold the
potential to reform or produce social workers whom see the Act as 'setting the
standards for individual social workers'. Such an unexamined attitude replicates
the Act by not naming Te Tiriti within the social work tradition (Appendix 1, Sub
10). In spite of making submissions, Social Workers own traditions in practice
are silenced by being re defined and categorized by the State and SWRA (2003)
as powerful experts (Hartman, 1992), again acts to endorse the States centrality
in the SWRA (2003).

Secondly, the SWRA (2003), in not responding to the concerns raised reproduces
the invisibility of submission writers. Such submission writers include Maori,
professionals, and women and in this the Act contributes to both enabling
patriarchy as systematic victimization and violence against women though the
public -private divide, women whom also significantly form the majority of workers
(Roy, 2006). The recognition of violence is particularly significant to those
affected however instead here there is no process for such recognition to occur.
The States notion of accountability, suggests it is informed by patriarchal values
where feminine is not the active proprietary. This as a discourse acts then to
reposition the women submitters as passive objects (rendered non human), to
be acted upon, yet equally whose compliance is required for State order and
62

standard setting (Cook, 2008). This meaning assumes further significance when
considering that workers own subjugation of self is required to embed this order.
Mirroring these pressures to comply, the Social work profession equally require
members to language their practices in notions of the economic system (the file,
the interview, the assessment), which are made normal in the professions
own competency practice (Winslade, 2002).

The initial shift in meaning to standard setting is distinct from those previous
discussions around registration where meaning was formed through relationship
and tradition (as in Hui making). The shift to reframing notions impacts on
submitters democratic participation (Spender, 1980; Ryde, 2009). This shift, if
unaddressed, will maintain peoples in ways of speaking that do not name Te Tiriti
traditions. The Registration Boards suggestion that the Act serves (only) an
administrative process reflects attitudes which themselves deny the power
communicated by structures in maintaining disadvantage (Roy, 2006). This may
provide significant focus for further PhD study.

Through analysis of the SWRA (2003), the language used illuminates how people
are positioned by different ways of speaking. The example here of ...'desirable
for Maori to be represented' (Appendix 2, pg. 3, SWRA (2003)) would center the
State and propose Maori as decentered. It actively shifts the fundamentals of self-
determination recognized in Te Tiriti Articles Two and Three, and notions
positioning the Tribunal (Appendix 1, Submission 15, 20, 21). Silencing is also
endorsed in the dissonance between what is said and what is done. For example,
the SWR Bill requires social work practitioners considered analysis when
working in non Maori processes with Maori, yet the SWR Bill process itself would
appear to produce diminished opportunity for that Maori process (Appendix 1,
Submission 20) (Drewery, 2005), (Durie, 2003), (SWR Bill Website). Arguably
63

these actions demonstrate a covert agenda that disables participation and
prevents a shared meaning in registration, in spite of submissions being called for
(Ryde, 2009). This is worthy of further study including resources within Hansards
so to seek the detailed contribution and further knowledge into this field of the
Nation State, professionals involved in liberation, and wellbeing of peoples.

In discourses where there is minimal conflict, the discourse forms new options,
and enables relationship building. The listener may check they can hear the
speaker (to hear involves being open to other as distinct and yet equal to self;
considering the language or framework utilized, the separate and shared
meanings and timeframes)(Winslade, 2002;Webber-Dreadon,1999). Ongoing
demonstration of that hearing (and by association the validation of the speaker) is
usual by encouraging, by rephrasing back to clarify, by making evident the
hearing in clarifying detailed points, and responding in the same format as the
speaker, mindful of positioning. This accountability enables the parties to develop
a shared story as a vehicle for going forward together, with which to counter the
magnitude and intensity of the presence of any oppression (Roy, 2006). In
discourse occurring in conflicted relations, people utilize language to assume
positions to legitimise their own entitlements as in I am a Registered Social
Worker! (Winslade, 2002).

Alternative possibilities

The previous analysis as to how discourse shapes thinking, particularly when
associated with domination and accumulation (where the colonised are
appropriated into the culture of the master), illuminates that this dominating power
play does not enable the partnership that seeks careful accountability for the
64

vulnerable seeking social care. This dominating power can only fail in any
recognition of intrinsic differences and so fail to respect high level of care for
peoples (Foucault, 1972; Everitt, Hardiker, Littlewood & Mullender, 1992; Ryde,
2009; Spender, 1980).

The research question(s) Lost Voices, Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA
(2003) states the research focus. The themes in those submissions studied
where the Treaty predominates as a centrality in the social work tradition (Puao
Te Ata Tu 1986). Te Tiriti languages how peoples may relate and be, enabling
a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008) (Spender, 1980).
Submitters indicate that the words 'Te Tiriti' dont just describe but perform
(create) the relational principles to people and land and therefore also the
relational principles between people (Winslade, 2002) (Drewery, 2005) (see:
Table 3.4 Law and Lore). There are powerful discourses and traditions that
emerged outside covert intentions of systematic shaping of the social workers
and social control (Winslade, 2002), (Faye, 1993) (ANZASW Code of Ethics
2008) (Payne, 2006). These are clearly detailed by the submitters requested that
tradition offered in Te Tiriti be honoured.
Summary and conclusion

In summary, this chapter discussed who the submitters were and their interest in
the Bill, what they said, how that was received, and the implications of this for the
social work registration process, as identified in the submissions. This
identification sought to raise the voices of submitters, and to offer the reader
knowledge about how what they said was received. Many of the submitters
voices sought an ethically informed tradition which acknowledged the context of
power. This is enabling of Maori interest and rangatiratanga thence justice in
Aotearoa (Kahukura 1991). This differs to the manner in which the submitters
65

were heard and in the response of the Select Committee as that of standard
setting prescribed for the SWRA (2003). How the SWRA (2003) may modify the
social in social work, the conceptual traditions informed by Te Tiriti and how
social workers will recognise their own meaning and experiences for social equity
in this country, will remain critical in the recommendation chapter that will follow
(Denzin, 1978 in Patton, 2002, pg. 278), (Burr, 2003; Walsh-Tapiata, 2009;
Drewery, 2005) (see: Table 3.4).

66

Chapter Five: Conclusion

This chapter reviews the research objectives, questions and findings.
Conclusions derived from a summary of the key findings follow a discussion of
the implications as they pertain to social work. Recommendations and
suggestions are explored together with some personal reflections.

The review of the research objectives, question, methodology and findings

This report sought to locate how the voices in the collective submissions
contributed to the presence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the SWRA (2003). The
research question enabled the focus on the final version of SWRA (2003), in
comparison with the submissions. That the research title sought the sensitising
notions to bicultural treaty based relationships was informed by tradition;
specifically that tradition around accountability through relationships in social
practice (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008) (Kahukura, 1991). For the choice of
methodology to be inclusive of, and sensitive to those variations in definitions of
biculturalism (bicultural treaty based relationships) within varied cultural and
political contexts proved challenging. The research objectives, question and
methodology sought to enable the submitters regard for Te Tiriti to inform the
SWRA (2003) within the context of the rights and responsibilities of all New
Zealanders (this forming symbolic biculturalism as defined by Herbert (in
Smithers, 2007)).

The methodology for the study drew on the analysis tools of feminist and
antiracist theory, which were applied in a process of document analysis (as these
67

theories seek to give voice to what is minimised or lost through gender or
ethnicity, consistent with the research objectives). Documentary analysis
provides a means by which to check that voices are heard, understood by not
being hidden. This approach allows identification of the power plays which occur
in everyday speech and in institutional practices, which is particularly important
as they influence the research (Burr, 2003, Payne, 2006, Walsh Tapiata, 2009).
Through everyday interactions particularly through the engagement with Maori
interest and rangatiratanga as prescribed clearly by Maori, that social equity and
justice is rechecked and negotiated (Kahukura, 1991, p. 34).The vigor for that
engagement and redress requires transformative action in the social, economic
and political struggle of Maori, and critique analysis of both social advocates and
Social workers (Payne, 2006), Mataira, 1995,Corrigan, 2000).

The researcher initially had sought access to all the 37 submissions as publicly
available material. Payment of photocopy fees enabled access to the bulk of
submissions with the remainder sourced from the Internet. In this study the
submissions were reviewed primarily to respond to the Social Workers
Registration Bill (SWR Bill 2001) to influence the content of the final Act. As the
research process unfolded further questions concerning the voices held in the
submissions and the way they had been mis-understood and so informed the Act
necessitated additional consideration of the documents of the Select Committee
context. Those submissions actively included were collective submissions (30).
This selection of submissions was to enable the wider expression of submitters
views in the research. The submission documents were reviewed for (A) (which
referenced Te Tiriti), these where then sought in the data in the SWRA (2003) (B)
this search for Te Tiriti allowed that the submitters voices could be evidenced
prior to the SWR Bill (2001) and review of resulting SWRA (2003) also occurred
for notification and reference towards Te Tiriti.
68

It is through theories that seek to make such as antiracism and feminism visible,
that the research findings may enable the recognition of differences advantaging
or excluding of voices inherently bound to the meaning making and healing of
peoples (Pinkola-Estes, 1992). Theories applied to the discursive analysis also
helped describe the theoretical and practical findings, and implications around
subjugation noted in the study.

Key findings
Five themes were found from the submissions:
1-Twenty-seven of 30 submitters requested the SWRA (2003) include Te
Tiriti o Waitangi.
2-The State by its involvement in the SWRA (2003) defined its role as
standard setting only, rather than enabling democratic participation or an
identification of the partnership between Maori and the Crown (Herbert in
Smithers, 2007) by regard for, and acting in a manner consistent with, the
provisions and principles of Te Tiriti (Appendix 1, Submission 30).
3-This approach served to reposition social workers as citizens and to
reduce their ability to be accountable as professional social workers.
4-Maori interest and rangatiratanga as tangata whenua appear redefined
by the legislation.
5-With the imposition of the Act as standard setting only, closing the
capacity to be responsive to people as women, hapu, iwi, is diminished,
rather they are acted upon in ways that may diminish identity and equally
diminish the opportunity to engage in the applied knowledge they carry.
This diminishes opportunity for bicultural partnership as a treaty based
69

relationship with people, the land, and Te Tiriti.

The findings showed that the submitters regard for Te Tiriti was not carried into
the SWRA (2003). The Act as a discourse arguably in turn diminishes mana of
Maori, and women practitioners. Amongst social workers it is women whom form
the mass number of practitioners. The unique formation of self, voice and identity
for women may be implicated being acted upon by the State through the Act.

An analysis of the social and political implications of these five themes and
discourses showed even between the Crown (as State) the context of structural
biculturalism becomes limited without strong Maori involvement (Herbert in
Smithers, 2007; Durie, 1995). For example, an analysis of the Act reveals that
the State and western norms are positioned to be absolutes for all to comply with.
This analysis is informed by the imposition of a generalised approach irrespective
of how diverse experience, interest of gender, ethnicity may inform understanding
as an emerging truth between people (Ryde, 2009) (Pinkola Estes 1992).

Words have meaning when we can connect them to our experiences as people.
Through access to words meaning may be formed for ones experience (so
informing ones integrity).This notion of integrity and associated accountability is
subsequent or concurrently occurring between oneself and other peoples
(Drewery, 2005). For the submitters meaning to inform how submissions are
heard, the Select Committee is required to acknowledge the world views of the
submitters. Then the enabling of the submission making context in that
biculturalism also occurs as an expression of rights to differences (Herbert in
Smithers 2007). Arguably the Committee own world view rendered difference as
indistinguishable when everything is white on white (Ryde, 2009) (Appendix 1, 2,
3).
70

The research found that the SWRA (2003) process positions peoples by limiting
the inclusion of their experience through submissions. A credible approach to
registration (possibly just for non Maori) based on Maori approaches and needs,
as prescribed clearly by Maori (Kahukura, 1991, p. 34). This limited inclusion
does not require any transformative action in the social, economic and political
struggle of Maori (Payne, 2006, Mataira, 1995, (Corrigan, 2000) as the
reconstituted structural relationship of the Committee with iwi, hapu arguably
occurred in a single culture manner that the Select committee members
determined and controlled. Thus this is not enabling distinct, neither separation
nor sameness participation by Maori submitters, and reduces democratic access
to the Act for any submitters (Ryde, 2009). The submitters, both Maori and non
Maori, held specific expectations which when failed may lead to the experience of
becoming meager, anxious, conflicted and disillusioned, being unsure and unsafe
personally and in practice (Durie, 1995). It is within a patriarchal order that
women and peoples non white become rendered silenced (Spender 1980)

This reshaping of social work and what is seen as safe and accountable in
social work, fails to represent its majority workers whom are women who form the
larger numbers of social workers. For the Act to not accept their practice wisdom
and academic knowledge in the submissions fails them and the traditions for
healing and meaning they carry (Walsh-Tapiata, 2009 Pinkolas Estes, 1992). For
women to be rendered lost to their voices, in this way, is to reposition them in
their ability to be authentic to their own truth and so to produce ones life and
affect others from ones practice and profession. Such positioning is described
as to not matter; to lose ones humanity (Drewery, 2005). These critical
subjugations are brought about by the power negotiated in legislation and then
normalised in every day use of language. These subjugations are in turn further
endorsed by media and carry far reaching effects on the well-being of others
(Roy, 2005). The silencing of women in the wider society is replicated and
71

appears to be normalised through the reasoning utilised by the Act and the
Committee. While language (for example the language of psychology) influences
women and Maori social work tools and practices (Ryde, 2009; Winslade & Monk,
2000), the SWRA (2003) as a language, now shifts (or arguably reduces) the
ground for bicultural Treaty based relationships by women, and with whanau,
hapu. The production of loss, numbing, the death of dreaming can be what this
mean to individuals pillaged of their expression (Roy, 2005).
What might have been? If informed by relationship within the tradition, then a
SWRA (2003) may have formed through the valuing of peoples stories, their
differences and these inform accountable social work (O Donoghue, 2007). That
the Act assumed to standard set only negates relationship with Maori, negates
regard for and actions consist with Te Tiriti, and negates womens participation in
shaping their profession.

This research analysis indicates how certain 'representations of events or
persons are being achieved by a process which has implications to desecrate
tradition in memory. These findings show that privileging the SWRA (2003) is to
demonstrate that the absolute self-determination inherent in Maori is reduced.
Arguably this is to reduce mana (God given gift, integrity authority, prestige,
influence) (Burr, 2003; Drewery, 2005 O Donoghue, 2007). Through analysis of
the Act the results demonstrate how Maori, and Maori and non Maori workers
have become constituted through the SWRA (2003) discourse to relationships
whereby they are positioned within a controlling structure outside their own
authenticity, and so are asked to rationalize, transpose, ignore, and inhibit Te
Tiriti (Faye, 1993). The SWR Act (2003) and its implications therefore become
normalised by ongoing State endorsement and unquestioning regards through
everyday words and the daily deeds occurring in social service agencies.

72

Implications of the lost voices for social work registration, the social work
profession and social work practice in Aotearoa New Zealand

Key implications are that social workers are less able to be open to the revival of
the practice or memory of what may be suppressed knowledge, and therefore are
rendered differently able by the SWRA (2003) in relation to their traditions.
Hartman (1992), & ODonoghue, (2007) call for social workers to be open to
expertise, to participate with peoples in the revival of suppressed knowledge and
call to re-imagine the social work profession in terms of the way in which it
regulates who is a professional Social worker (ODonoghue 2007,pg.1). To not
do so implies that those submitters and their knowledge are indeed repositioned
by values very different from the tradition informing their work. This has
implications.
One implication is that social workers as submitters may become lost to a critical
part of their tradition by the process developing the SWR Act.
That many of the submitters invited the development of the SWR Act(2003) within
knowledge established in Te Tiriti marks their critical awareness of ways
informing the indigenous traditions and of social work in Aotearoa. That Te Tiriti
informs the governance structure alone could produce the re imagined Act as a
civic partnership (a structural biculturalism) between State, profession, and iwi.
The invitation that this would equally inform regulatory authority constitution and
decision making processes as being Te Tiriti based could have ongoing
consequences to meaning and social equity for Maori and all New Zealanders
(ODonoghue, 2007; Herbert in Smithers, 2007).

With the understanding of discourses as practices that systematically form the
objects of which they speak (Winslade, 2002), the research demonstrates that
73

the discourses silenced submitters calling for Te Tiriti and this knowledge was not
to inform the Act. At that time of the SWR Act (2003) there was a drive in
legislative bodies of government to remove reference to Te Tiriti from State
legislation.

The analysis suggest that within the SWRA (2003) (as a standard setting), there
is no place whereby registering becomes mana enhancing or enabled within
those equally important traditions of social work supervision; employment,
performance management, professional membership, and social workers
completion of study as illustrating competency and fitness (O Donoghue, 2007).

Currently the creation of the social work registration is arguably narrow. It leaves
any real accountability to the individual to act within their integrity. The SWR Act
(2003), but does not assume the social workers competence but develops from a
notion drawn on in education theory, as the empty vessel pedagogy.

O Donoghue (2007) advocates re-imagining registration that enables applicants
to claim agentic power, to use questions, both purposeful and political to
deconstruct oppressive narratives. Why is Te Tiriti not named in the SWRA
(2003)? as a 'externalizing question' allows the critique of persons from problem.
To not to confuse the two, can also liberalize narratives (White, & Epston, 1990).
From this study, I would argue language as a social activity is, in being
articulated, potentially carrying age-old colonial logic in New Zealand which
negatively impacts on Maori, relationships principles and the value of respect
(Connolly, 2005). The current unchallenged SWRA (2003) language remains
under examined so is more likely to perpetuate Maori subordination and womens
subordination, and gains legitimacy in being structurally endorsed in legislation
(Spender, 1985). The insight then, gained from examining the way language
positions people may bring the oppressive narratives to consciousness. This
74

consciousness may engender challenges to the replication of colonisation as a
constantly reproducing force, alive in any un-critiqued legal processes (Laenui,
1999), and in any process where strong Maori participation is not present (Durie
1995).
While social work practitioners need to pay attention to theories informing them,
the State is a powerful endorser of those whom have the power and are
authorized to know, and their 'knowledge' is afforded privilege, (Everiit, Hardiker,
Littlewood, & Mullender,1992, pg. 49, citing Worrall, 1990, pg. 7). Uncritiqued,
the social work profession merely reinforces traditional boundaries as a helping
compliant profession. The discipline or profession, may redress such by its
tradition located in its bicultural statement for a Te Tiriti based society (Mohan,
2005; Ryde, 2009)(ANZASW 2008) .
Social Work Registration as part of a wider process, both reinforces and
accompanies embedded discourses maintaining eurocentric control
(Foucault,1972; Laenui, 1999). It would appear implicit in the research on lost
voices and SWR Act (2003) that social workers both as citizens and
professionals, are conscious of practices that systematically form the objects of
which they speak. The submitters claimed that Te Tiriti should inform the SWRA
(2003), (Winslade, 2002).

Inferences drawn from the findings

The inferences are twofold. In the study findings, the submission process and the
Act were positioned in a New Zealand constitutional practice that allows
government to regulate and control the democratic participation in a legislative
outcome (for example the SWRA (2003)). In this climate, regulation and control
75

enabled a process whereby the State prescribe to social workers ;this is a way of
speaking that was not consistent with the ground roots origin of social advocacy
by the people towards a oppressive Nation State (Cheyne et al, 2005). These
inferences will be now discussed.

To begin, initially this government regulation and control occurred through the
Select Committee, which sought submissions on the SWR Bill (2001) and
subsequently described its role as standard setting only. This informed the
committees work with submissions by diminishing their reference to a treaty,
positioning any reference as only related to land. While the Bill itself is described
as containing clauses with specific reference to meeting the needs of Maori, the
writers of the Bill stated that it is not common for the Treaty of Waitangi to be
included in statute; that where Te Tiriti is included (and this involves physical and
land based resources) the Treaty establishes a relationship between Crown and
Maori.(Notes to SWR Bill).

In contrast the proposed Bill has now been repositioned as a framework of
standards for all social workers. The Treaty is therefore described by the writers
of the Bill as not relevant to the Bill as it is not about 'providing services. This Bill
was rather about setting standards for (all) individual social workers. This
rationale demonstrates a managerial discourse (one possibly tempered by risk
evasion focus) which has been evident in social service funding and delivery over
the past years. A similar discourse is evident in the Committee acting to regulate
the reduced risk by applying the regulation of workers. This regulation and
control approach enabled a process to prescribe a definition of accountability
onto social workers. As a way of speaking this approach was not consistent with
the profession whom encourage within their own art and science the ongoing
reflective practice on empowerment and encouraging increased knowledge in
Maori culture and Te Tiriti (Smithers, 2007). Nor is that way of speaking
76

consistent with generally accepted principles of open democracy participation in
legislation formation (Cheyne et al, 2005).

That the language of State managerialism interacted within the professional body
ANZASW itself probably also did assist that positioning of social workers as being
outer to the center of their own authentic, and to degrees as non participants in
the production of their lives (personal communication 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2010). The way State legislative processes themselves are positioned may
render them unable to serve peoples diversity but only offer a generalized
approach which itself fails to respect distinct traditions and values of integrity and
human liberation (Cheynne et al 2005).

The presence of a generalised standard setting applied to people without
consideration of their relationship values and integrity also shifted the ground
wherein there are bicultural treaty based relationships. The Associations Code
(ANZASW, 2008) seeks differently to contribute toward relationship building
within a Te Tiriti based society (White, 1991, cited in Drewery, 2005). The
traditions of Te Tiriti carry echoes of whenever Te Tiriti had been used before in a
larger social discourse. This historical context also signifies various way of
responding based upon that knowing and context. Responses to this regulatory
authority might include that a social worker may act by being silent. This
response may also result from being rendered voiceless as a result of an
external authority, such as the SWRA (2003) ( Patton, 2002, pg. 7). To promote
silencing, however, is not consistent with the professions Code of Ethics
(ANZASW 2008) and its promotion of the value of self-determination and social
justice.
To deconstruct discourse requires a consideration of language and cultural
safety. That the Crown may require a cloak of legitimacy conferred by Te Tiriti,
77

is something Maori do not require. It is the Crown, as the State, that significantly
leads in the SWRA (2003). Alternatively are evident in a Maori led SWR Act.
Here whanau, hapu, iwi Maori shape the accountability of social workers within
cultural values of relationship, traditions, and therein place focus on a specific
notion of a bicultural Pakeha social worker(Jackson, 2010).
Would this address generalised notions of undefined bicultural appropriateness
which again fail to respect peoples by the ill-defined accountabilities (Smithers
2007; Drewery, 2005; Ryde, 2009; Durie 1995; Herbert in Smithers, 2007)? This
positioning and silencing along with the way social workers may take up
subjectivity within the discourse process that SWRA (2003) makes available,
leads to further questions outside the brief of this study.

What this means for Social Work.

Social workers Code of ethics (ANZASW Code 2008) describe professionals
being accountable for their practice. This research, sought to appreciate this
accountability as shaped through the formation of the SWRA (2003). One
appreciation is that the Act as a creation re positioned Maori self determination
and that of womens practice authenticity. The reflective practice made possible
by the research opportunity and approach assists to illuminate the current
positioning of the profession, the SWRA (2003) and the shifting of ground around
bicultural Treaty based relationships (Everiit, Hardiker, Littlewood, & Mullender,
1992, pg. 49). Each point is addressed as follows:

While many submitters expressed their wish for Te Tiriti to inform the SWRA
(2003), it can be argued that as this was not included diminished the tradition of
the profession and of just social work. For workers to notice, give expression of
what they notice, and act to limit the accountability of the SWRA (2003) as a form
78

of their own professional accountability offers spaces to redress their silencing.
While the delivery of social justice may lie beyond the reach of the State, as
socialist feminists argue, the invitation to develop robust partnerships,
relationship principles that draw in historical context, care for each other that
remain potential sources for current meaning making as to even being involved,
and questioning the State and its accountability for social working in Aotearoa
(Jackson, 2010). In making explicit the principles that inform Aotearoa social
work, within the objectives of the professional association ANZASW toward a Te
Tiriti based society, that, then the potentiality for social workers accountability is
identified (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999; Davies, Flemmen, Gannon, Laws, & Watson,
2002; Mohan, 2005).

What part of this discourse can the profession proceed with? Social work is
concerned with enabling relationships in order to promote social justice. This may
require workers with the ability to interact in a given situation between several
bodies of knowledge, relationships, and attributes in relationship with tangata
whenua (ANZASW Code of Ethics, 2008). Enabling social workers in the wider
context of a situation requires engendering the professions commitment to see
themselves more than compliant or just workers, but to work as advocates to
shift power. These duplicate approaches call for mindfulness of subjugation and
colonisation, mindfulness of opportunities for enabling understanding of Te Tiriti
as a discourse of power relationships. These power relationships are evident
already in Maori authority in non-governmental sector, community groups,
churches (Armstrong, 2010).

The personal reflection

The reflections of the researcher on this journey often were personally
79

overwhelming, and the practical obstacles at times appeared insurmountable. It
was as the researchers consciousness developed in the context of her
involvement in the study and as the data was gathered, that then this enabled a
growing understanding. For example, as a social worker the research process
offered valuable opportunity to be mindful of the invisibility of any woman in social
work in a time where workers report they feel growing dis-connection to their own
profession (personal communication, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). There
appears a correlation between workers experiences and the research
documents analysis of subjugation and violence. Subjugation on multiple levels
that are identified here may inform a future PhD to identify and develop these
themes further.

The writer struggled also with the lengthy research journey as honoring this
process of research required extensive literature reviewing and detailing, more
than was originally anticipated. Parallel to this there was much to be done by the
writer to both recognise, and then to claim a space to speak from. The raising to
consciousness came with recognition of pain for the writer as a woman, and also
as someone for whom significant support and time were required to write clearly.
I found there were no keepers of the truth rather that the reality of things
emerged from out of relationship bringing different aspects together. Even if these
are dismissed as only words, they echo the tradition formed by peoples on this
land. By standing within landscape and ancestors then one can claim a deeper
act of seeing, and of accountability.

80

Conclusion and recommendation:

In conclusion the study examines the collective submission to the SWR Act
(2003) and the relationship to the formed SWRA (2003). The research offers an
opportunity for the reader to more fully understand language and relationships of
power that serve the maintenance of social work, of social inequalities and
continued oppression (Pihama, 1993, in Cram, 2001). The key issue examined in
this research is the exclusion of the submitters concerns in the SWRA (2003).
Through this research there is an opportunity to support social workers to notice
those absences. This invitation speaks back against any normalization of the
subjugation of the submitters voices.

Social work informed by Te Tiriti makes it possible to see the world in certain
ways (Burr, 2003; Puao Te Ata Tu 1986) and from this seeing to participate in
forming identity and accountability within traditions valued in Aotearoa. Here,
with the world opened in this way, it is possible for the negotiation of power
relationships to occur in three ways.
Firstly, structurally between Maori and the Crown;
Secondly in a tradition of bicultural partnerships with others in society where
respectful inquiry recognises Maori;
Thirdly in symbolic biculturalism about making space for each other, rather than
prescribing to others.
Implicit within these three notions is the fourth of material biculturalism. A
reimagined SWRA (2003) could respond in partnerships informed by Te Tiriti to
redress historical grievance as part of accountability (Herbert in Smithers, 2007)
providing opportunity for differing notions of voices, to mediate a way forward.
Rather than to be singularly held accountable by the imposition of an Act upon
81

them, or subjugated by its language (Sampson, 2003, in Drewery, 2005), workers
may re-imagine responding in the Te Tiriti informed tradition respectful of the
power in those words. Dismissed as only words; yet as Te Tiriti o Waitangi they
mark a tradition that when within, one can claim to see.

82

APPENDIX 1. The Collation of Data from Submissions.
List of submitters and initial scope of their data

Submission 1: Commercial Press Union
Supports Bill -
Theme: Openness. Support clause 77 for hearing around Social workers
Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal to be held in public; advocates that it is
fundamental that the public has ability to follow and understand the work of the
Tribunal.
CPU as place of authority-gender, culture not named.

Submission 2: Family Start Invercargill
Support framed as given it is 'likely to proceed' - Two Treaty reference
Theme: 'the Bill satisfies 'who's' needs? The work offers an analysis of Bill
decreasing service delivery or accountability issues or increasing public
confidence. Perpetuates CYF as mono cultural agency and 'does not undertake
its obligations to Maori under the Treaty'.
'I ' as place of authority.

Submission 3: Social Workers Mental Health Social Work Canterbury DHB
Support Bill -One Treaty reference
Theme focus on establishing Regulation framework for Registration of Social
Workers, and protection and safety of the public; to ensure social workers
competent to practice.
References professional definition and references Ti Tiriti O Waitangi; 'its
centrality to social work practice in New Zealand should be incorporated in the
Bill'.
'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named.

Submission 4: Social workers Mental Health Services Auckland DHB
Supports Registration and intent of the Bill-Four Treaty references.
Theme honoring the Treaty must be an explicit goal demonstrated in
representation, consistent with the Crown, National and DHB mental health
policy, the social work professional body (ANZASW) (Presentation note 2.0).

Submission 5: Students, Te Tari Matauranga Maori Manakau Institute of
Technology.
Do not support- eight references to the Treaty.
Theme does not support bill in present form due to absence of the Treaty wishes
to implementation of articles in very clause, and the Treaty being reflected in the
make up of the Select Committee looking at the Bill.
'We' Maori, Pacifica, Pakeha as place of authority-gender, not named
83

Submission 6: Tu Tama Wahine O Taranaki Family Therapy center.
Does not support -
Theme in general not support registration of social workers; that this Bill does not
have impact on the problems Registration proposes to address. The work names
that the government and professional associations are not objective and hold
capacity to discriminate against Maori. Acknowledged dominance give to culture
of Europeans and need to recognize Maori, Tangata Pacifica and European.
Authority of writing from a tangata whenua womens group.

Submission 7: Te korowai Aroha Mental Health providers, Auckland.
Supports Registration-one reference to Treaty.
Theme agrees that mandated registration of social workers is to protect and
ensure best practice. ANZASW definition of Social work be adopted and links to
promotion of ANZASW promotion of social work standards and competencies
inclusive of the profession ensuring social work in New Zealand is conducted with
regard due to Te Tiriti O Waitangi.
We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named

Submission 8: Aotearoa World Organisations for Early Childhood
Education (O.M.E.P).
Supports Registration
Themes focus on the registration of social work and well being of children and
families. Regulation is seen as providing a standard of terms in quality of practice,
and most appropriate support be provided.
We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named

Submission 9: Leaders of Social Workers in DHBS, in New Zealand.
Supports proposal of Registration-Themes are around the seeking for protection
safety of members of public, improving quality of social work services, structure
fitness and competency of social worker to practice. This acknowledges the focus
on social workers not the profession, social work needs defining, fails to mandate
registration. Submission written from We' as authority-gender, culture not named

Submission 10: Health Waikato, Social Work Service
Supports registration-nine references to Treaty
Themes safe effective delivery to clients and families, social work within complex
transactions of people and their environment, notes need to acknowledge
indigenous social work, tradition offered by ANZASW in Code of Ethics, link
social work education, competent practice in accord to Treaty. Puao Te Ata Tu,
Kahukura documents named. Written from 'We' as authority-gender, culture not
named.

84

Submission 11: New Zealand Associations of Social Work Educators
Support for Registration -eight references to the Treaty.
Themes noted support yet required references to resources and social work, links
to Treaty and to Social work ethics (ANZASW). Noted the relationship in
indigenous social work tradition present in Puao Te Ata Tu and need to align
social work courses and education with such landmark documents as Puao Te
Ata Tu and Kahukura.

Submission 12: Waikato Branch & Waikato Roopu ANZASW.
Supports Registration as to enhance well being of all whom use social work
services- nine references to Treaty.
Themes recognizing economic and social policies role in reducing disparities for
the community, indigenous social work tradition present in Puao Te Ata Tu, need
for organizational support and roles of education, training, and supervision.
Named need to reference both Treaty and social work tradition in ANZASW.
Roopu named as co writers of submission.

Submission 13: Presbyterian Support Service Centre Central
Supports reasoning for public safety
Themes are that a conditions for Board in concern for the mechanism for good
performance and the measures to ensure accessible adequate supply of social
workers.

Submission 14: ANZASW Canterbury Branch
Support intent of the Registration framework -two references to Treaty.
Themes acknowledge wider scope of social work (as to influence Policy) and the
risk of proposed legislation not inclusive of interest of all; seeks needs of clients
and concerns of professions for timely effective culturally safe work.
Names a percentage of branch are acknowledged as tangata whenua, an
authority which informs submission.

Submission 15: Waitama DHB Social Workers
Supports registration -seven references to Treaty.
Themes public protection most important reason for registration, providers of
social work expected to honor Treaty and the Treaty centrality on provision and
delivery of services. Notes need for Treaty obligations in Board Complaints
committee.

85

Submission 16: Pacific Health Social Work Service, Mental Health Eastern
BOP
Supports legislation ensures social work competency-three Treaty references.
Themes identified are the Treaty as foundation for social work practice are
acknowledged, linking to the Code of Ethics ANZASW.

Submission 17: Barnardos
Supports legislation ensures social work accountability-One Treaty reference.
Themes names effects poor unregulated social work supports ANZASW
submission names definition of social work needed for purpose of registration,
supports ANZASW competency process.
Submission written from authority of workplace Barnardos as place of authority-
gender, culture not named.

Submission 18: National Council of Women of New Zealand
Supports registration as a requirement for social work practice-one reference to
Treaty.
Themes recommend user group inform advocacy training, request specific
inclusion of Treaty emphasis adequate fluency in English.
We' as place of authority-gender not culture named.

Submission 19: North Shore Branch ANZASW
Supports desirability of social worker to be registered.
Themes fitness of person, academic qualification, qualities and attributes in pre
registration period, police check, involvement of peoples of varied cultures, client
focus.

Submission 20: National Network Of Stopping Violence Services
Supports bill with aim those employed by CYF assessed as compliant and
register-
Themes supportive of Social Workers registration board, acknowledges
Complaint and Discipline Tribunal. Names Tribunal be fully responsive to Maori
process names potential of Bill to stigmatize those people able to receive
registered social work or non registered social work and notes erodes networks
which are fundamental to society. Names that the State, in being supportive of
whanau, hapu, is as a (significant) way to support its members.

Submission 21: Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi
Supports purpose of the Act - nineteen references to Treaty .
Themes are of need for acknowledging Treaty, tangata whenua, practices of two
86

partners; of the tino rangatiratanga self determination of Maori to drive delivery of
all processes. Social Service industry has explicit audit requirement relating to Te
Tiriti, hence it is proposed in Purpose and then be present throughout the Act .
Names links to social work defined by IFSW and ANZASW parallel model of
government and open recognition of the Treaty

Submission 22: National Assembly of People with Disabilities
Supports bill to benefit social work profession
Themes supports bill for those required to use Social work services,
acknowledges mechanics to add accountability for social workers, sees disability
safety as core cultural safety.

Submission 23: Counties Manakau DHB Social Workers.
Supports with clauses Treaty referenced one
Themes links Social work to ANZASW, IFSW definition and code of ethics,
requests Treaty Rep on member of Board, Tribunal. Adds notions of supervised
practice, the law includes the professional body of social workers.

Submission 24: Commissioner for Children R McClay
Supports Bill-
Themes comments on requirement for registration, membership of the
Registration Board, and the Complaint procedure.
'I' and 'my office' as places of authority, gender, culture not named.

Submission 25: Staff Communities and Families Study University of Otago
Supports registration properly implemented and controlled-Treaty referenced
eight times.
Themes related to Treaty identified in word search in context of Puao Te Ata Tu,
and education in Kahukura document. Social Work practices need be free of
inappropriate managerial or political influence. Names Code of ethics ANZASW
linking of social work education qualification and educational institutes,
recognition in-law for social work profession, and the notion of supervised
practice.

Submission 26: Social workers Lakes DHB
Supports registration-
Themes supportive of the protection of public compulsory registration and that the
scrutiny around fitness and competency of social work should happen. All trained
social workers are required to register.
87

'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named

Submission 27: N.Z Plunket Society Inc.
Supports intent of the bill-
Themes notes disempowerment for social work parallels disempowerment
experienced by clients and need for specific training.
Supports registration-
Themes support protection of public compulsory registration and that the scrutiny
around fitness and competency of social work should happen. All trained social
workers recommended as should be required to be registered.
Own society as place of authority-gender, culture not named.

Submission 28: Waikato Roopu ANZASW
Not Supportive of Bill-
Themes names social work practice based on the Treaty and the social work
Registration Act excludes Treaty, promotes mono cultural Crown dominated
system of registration not recognizing Treaty, Puao Te Ata Tu, and Kahukura
document.
Names Registration Board and complaints Committee membership not consistent
with Treaty so not adequate protect Maori self-determination, Driven by economic
and political expediency. Not refer to social work practice or education in New
Zealand. Written from Roopu, as a place of authority, (gender not named).

Submission 29: International Association of Schools of Social Work
Supports Bill with concerns-one reference made to the Treaty.
Themes supports submission made by NZASWE, aligns overseas study and
qualifications, query voluntary nature of registration, request alignment with key
Social features such as relationship with Treaty. Kahukura document named.
Supports registration-'We' as place of authority-gender, culture not named.

Submission 30: ANZASW Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social
Workers.
Supports legislation for public protection - twenty references to Treaty'.
Themes raised are inadequate references to Treaty and requests recognition of
this in composition, structures, processes of registration Board and Act. ANZASW
names all people registered under the Act be required to have regards for and act
in a manner consistent with provision and principles of Te Tiriti. Supports
registration-Themes supports protection of public compulsory registration and
that the scrutiny around fitness and competency of social work should happen. All
trained social workers are recommended as should be required to be registered.
Names Maori, Maori caucus and roopu as place of authority-gender not named.

88

APPENDIX 2: Data collection and analysis; working within
the methodology and the research development across
time.

Submission, Select Committee commentary , Government commentary to
the Bill, and The Social Workers Registration Act (SWRA) 2003.
Timeline and development of Research.

June collection, collation, scope for data.

1-Gather submissions, and the Act and categorize the gathered submissions
2-Numbered in sequence each submission as gathered
3-Review context of each
5-Separated submissions made by individuals (10); Remove submissions not
fitting submission criteria; collate presentation notes given with submissions so
Collective submissions from 30 for the research project here.

Label documents as to naming Te Tiriti or Treaty of Waitangi as sensitising
notion.

The July Analysis
Analysis of data re Te Tiriti in submissions, additional note of context regarding
the naming ofPuao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) documents.
Note taken of authority (location) of submission writers by profession
by iwi hapu whanau
by gender

Analysis of parts and of relationship of this, to parts; who are the Lost voices?
Who are lost? Does 'lost ' mean repositioned by larger social structures?
Examination of 'Lost' from what; is this identity, agency (one or a group of
peoples ability to choose to act)?
Consideration of macro system on the documents examined. In the Select
Committee process the Collective submission were given as much value as those
written by individuals, the submissions written by professional were valued as that
of the Commercial Press Union (Sub one), the submission from Maori social
workers were given no significance in value to influence the Bill. The application
of the sensitising notion held in Te Tiriti allowed this to be valued in submissions.
Comparison was then applied to the Act, and subsequently other documents
(Select Committee commentary and explanatory notes for the Government bill
leading to the Act).
89

Findings: What is there?
a) Thirty collectively made submissions
See Submission, named and key theme in Appendix1- which lists each
submission reference to Treaty, and key themes.

b) Three say outright No to Registration

c) Twenty-seven address Registration as necessary or au fait accompli but
requested specific recommendations in the eventual Act (Appendices Three)
Reflection for analysis; considering against the layers of discourses of others
create much of what is available for people to say, to resist creates identity more
than conceding. Moments of refusal are crucial to human identity development
(Winslade 2002).

d) Specific recommendation in twenty of thirty were they named Treaty of
Waitangi (Te Tiriti) as significant to be included for the legislation, so as not to
betray the indigenous social work tradition in Aotearoa (example Submission 10 ,
pg 2,Health Waikato-see Appendix 1).

e) Of the nineteen, seven named Te Tiriti in context of Puao te Ata Tu (1986).
They named that to omit reference to The Treaty in a bill for Social Workers is
incomprehensible (described in Submission 5, Students -Te Tari Maturanga
Maori, Manukau, Appendix One).

f) Of the seven, three name Ti Tiriti in context of Kahukura (1991) as marking a
key difference between Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas social work
(Submission 10, Appendix 3).

Findings: What is missing?

g) The Bill was named as seems a backward step and will further disadvantage
Maori both as social workers and clients in its present form it will simply continue
cultural practices of culturally incompetent Pakeha working with Maori
(Submission 5 pg. 1, Appendix 1).

h) Of thirty submissions, writers of four submissions (sub) located their comments
with locating themselves:
Sub 5 names Maori, Pacifica, Pakeha as place from which to write
Sub 6 names Tangata Whenua Social Services Women group
Sub 12 introduces Roopu of Waikato as place from which to write
Sub 14 introduces 14% percentage of membership as tangata whenua
Sub 28 introduces Roopu of Waikato as place to write. (Appendix1).
90

Gender is named in only one Submission (Sub. 6), which names its organisation
developed from initiative of Maori women. As social worker this analysis may
inform 'Lost Voices', in lost from what?
Findings: What might have been?
By reflecting the content data obtained in the submissions, through a contrasting
and compared to the SWRA (2003) orientation to the notions held in Te Tiriti
appeared initially unworkable given the Act did not name Te Tiriti. Examination
was then applied to related sensitising notions as Puao Te Ata Tu (1986),
Kahukura (1991), Maori.

Social Workers Registration Act (2003).

June sort and separated SWRB Select committee commentary, remove Hansard
Debate as not fitting the document criteria for this methodology; collate Act,
Committee Commentary, SWR bill as context to examine SWRA (2003). This
was informed by Patton (2002) whom describes the value in organising the
complexity of the experience made available by sensitising concepts within the
setting in which they occur, (Patton, 2002, pg 279).

Findings: What is there?

Analysis of SWRA (2003) data re Te Tiriti by note of context named in references
to Puao Te Ata Tu (1986), Kahukura (1991) and extended to reference to Maori,
tangata whenua, as no Te Tiriti references available n the Act itself.
The following details the data in (A) SWRA in context of (B) SWR Bill and (C)
SWRB Select Committee Commentary:

A) SWRA the document did not name Te Tiriti

What was there : In SWRA, the Board has named responsibility to Maori (9
references).
-Part two, section 6,c. 1 (pg 10), sect 7,a, 1(pg 11)
Section 13, b, iv A (page 14) each : competent to practice with Maori,.
-Section 66, 3, b (pg 42) desirable for Maori to be represented on committee.
-Section 100, 1 (pg 62) obligations of the Board in relationship to Maori to ensure
aims and aspirations, needs for involvement. This forms 3 references.
-Sect 117 c, 1 (pg 67) Suitability of certain people, on Tribunal
-Schedule one 2, iv (pg 86) the Board representative of Maori.

91

B) SWR Bill and explanatory note from Government to the Bill, did not name
Te Tiriti
In seeking a context the following was noted
-Explanatory note held in pg. 27, (clause 98) of Act Board ensure integral and
ongoing priorities four references regarding Maori as tangata whenua (aims and
aspirations, appropriate involvement , employment of Maori, and other views.

-pg 30 (Clause 115 Act) that Tribunal has enough people who represent Maori

-pg 38(clause 147) Board has representation of Maori. (6 references in total)

SWR Bill
-The Bill itself, Part 6, (pg 50),Sect 98,title, (a) aims and aspiration of Maori,
involvement of Maori as tangata whenua, employment requirements of Maori
(98,c).
- Part 6 Pg 50, Section 99; mechanism for obtaining the view of Maori (99,a).
6 references in regards Maori
- Page 56, Section 115,c, suitability of appointments to Board 'enough peoples
representing Maori.1 reference Maori
-Schedule 1, 2 b; notes the Board has representation Maori (pg 71).
-Schedule 1, 41 3, notes the Committees constituted to ensure views of Maori (pg
84).
-Schedule 1, 50; 2, d notes the Board as good employer recognizes aims and
aspirations of Maori, employment and involvement of Maori (3 on pg 87).
References re Maori: 12 total references.

C) SWRB Social Services Committee commentary names Te Tiriti 6 times
It is through the social services committee commentary are 6 referenced to Te
Tiriti and 12 named references to Maori;
See:
Part 2, 6,c 1 (pg 7) -1
Part2, 7, c 1(pg 8)-1
Part 2, 13, (1), b, iv, A (pg 11)-1
Part 4, 64, 2A b (pg38)-1
Part 6, 98 title, (a), (c) (pg 58)-4 struck out
Part 6, 99 title, (a) (pg 58)-2 struck out
Part 6, 98, title, (1), (2) (pg 59) -3
Part 6, 115, (c), (i) pg 65)-1
Schedule 1, 2, 2 (b), (iv)(pg82)-1
Schedule 1, 41(3) (pg 95)-1 struck out
Schedule 1, 50 2(d), (i),(ii),(iii)(pg 98)-3
92

What is not there?
Te Tiriti not named in Bill, Act.
There are references to Te Tiriti is named in Select Committee Commentary

Noted that the location of the Bill or Select Committee membership does not
name those participants either by their profession, by iwi hapu whanau, by
gender.

That in the Act, or Bill, or Select Committee there is no location of authority of the
Submission writers by either ethnicity, gender, or any authority /weighing afforded
professional experience.

It is noted overused sensitising concepts can become desensitising (Patton,
2002, pg. 279). By reference to a graphic layout of findings the research
becomes identified clearly; see Appendix 3.
Findings: What might have been?
By comparison and contrasting through noting the data available in the
submissions and in the Act and the sensitising possible through Te Tiriti as
a sensitising notion the voices lost in the process in forming the important
legislation for the State Registration of Social Workers is considered.
Consideration is given in the narrative examining the discursive positioning
offered in the language utilised through the context of the Select Committee
commentary and the Bill.

Puao Te Ata Tu (1986) clearly sets out why Maori need to be involved in the
provision of social services at all levels (Submission 5, pg 1,Appendices Three).
Social work profession clearly name members commitment to a Te Tiriti based
society (ANZASW Code 2008).

From this context the framed recommendations and related implications
emerging from the research are detailed.

93

APPENDIX 3 Comparison and contrast of documents

Submission
Number
Refer TOW Submission Writer Views Context Notes
1 w/ prof. as authority S 0
2 2 Te Tiriti I as authority Support/likely to
proceed
0
3 1 Te Tiriti we, prof. S 0
4 4 Te Tiriti
Ref
we, prof. S 0
5 8 Te Tiriti we, ethnicity Not support Puao Te Ata Tu
6 Tangata whenua,
Pacifica, women
Not support 0
7 1 Te Tiriti We S 0
8 We S 0
9 We S 0
10 9 Te Tiriti We S Puao Te Ata Tu
Kahukura

Kahukura

13 We S 0
14 2 Te Tiriti Prof. /Tangata whenua S 0
17 1 Te Tiriti w/ prof. as authority S 0
19 We S 0
20 We S 0
22 We S 0
24 I/ my office S 0
25 8 Te Tiriti We S Puao te ata tu
Kahukura

26 We S 0
27 organization S 0
28 Roopu Not support Puao te ata tu
Kahukura

29 1 Te Tiriti We S Kahukura
30 20 Te Tiriti Maori, Roopu S 0
0
SWR Bill, S C 6 Te Tiriti We 0 12 Ref
Maori
SWR Bill, Ex
Notes
0 18 Ref
Maori
SWRA(2003) 0 9 Ref
Maori
Prof. (refers to Professions).

94

Glossary of Terms

Discourse: this refers to ways of speaking about how the world should be and
that reflects interwoven sets of power relationships; Discourse systematically
forms the objects of which they speak (Drewery 2005, Winslade 2002).

Agency: people who participate in conversations that produce meanings of their
lives are in agentive positions, have agency (Drewery 2005).

Colonisation: colonisation informs speech where one merely speaks as the
dominant discourses permit (Samson 2003 in Drewery 2005).

Positioning theory: Positioning occurs in everyday speech, reduces the person
drawing on their own words rather discourse position one. This may be resisted
or accepted; these reflect the power play of larger discourses that privilege some
and subjugate others.

Positioning theory and discourse analysis: using an analysis of ways of
speaking to or of someone, combined positioning theory, one can see how in
language people are constituted through discourse to relationships by different
ways of speaking (Drewery 2005).

Power: has multiple definitions and those used here are:
1) New Zealands social structure is maintained by system of power relationships
between people and the organization of economics (finances), shared opinions
(politics), shared values (culture) (Shannon 2002).
2) Power as recognizing ones presence (Wagner D., 1999 cited in Patton 2002).
3) Power as created in discourse, where words actively create, and also position
people so when people stopped accepting then they shift structures.
95

4) Foucault (in Winslade 2002) suggests power is constructed in discourse and is
about producing people not only repressing them. Repression occurs around
margins of everyday activities where power in language, in discourse (such as
the SWRA produces the social worker person).

Social worker: the term is formed within culture, and its contemporary
construction is drawn from missionaries helping the deserving poor focusing on
isolated immigrant men, unmarried women and their children. Curiously Maori
whanau embodied this role and had originally provided food, resources, and
shelter adequate to ensure survival of early settlers (Durie, 2003); Today the term
usually refers to some one employed in the role of working to assist with an
understanding of relationships both introspective, individual, collective, and
environmental. Ethics may inform the role of supporting self-determination,
protection from harm, social responsibility in which social justice sits, and in
Aotearoa a commitment to a Te Tiriti based society (ANZASW Code Ethics
2008). The term of State Registered Social Workers are those workers
registered on the SWRA log and meeting the requirement of the Act.

Subjective relativity is the forming of meaning or reality within ones own words
not to be an object with reality subscribed in others words. Part of subjective
reality is while it is informed by the subject also it can form with others and
respectful inquiry assists the development of shared meaning in relationships that
are not colonising (Drewery 2005).

96

References

Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers Incorporated, (2008). Code of Ethics,
Revised, Dunedin.

Armstrong, M. (2010). We did not cede our sovereignty; Joan Cook Memorial Waitangi Day
Essay. Whangarei, Network Waitangi.

Beddoe, L. & Randall, H. (1994). The New Zealand Association of Social Workers: The
Professional Response to a Decade of Change. In Munford, R., & Nash, M. Social Work
in Action, pg 21-36. Palmerston North, Dunsmore Press.

Belich, J. (1996). Making Peoples; A History of New Zealanders. From Polynesian settlement
to the end of the Nineteenth Century. Auckland, Penguin Books.

Bell, J. (2007). Doing your Research Project: a guide for first time researchers in
education, health and social sciences. 4
th
Edition. Open University Press,
England.

Blagdon, J., Taylor, M. & Keall, B. (1994). Social Workers Registration, Social
Work Review VI (4), pp 24-25.

Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism. 2nd Edition. USA Canada Routledge Publisher

Cheyne, C., O'Brien, M. & Belgrave, M. (2000). Social Policy in Aotearoa New
Zealand; A Critical Introduction, 3
rd
Edition. Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

Connolly, M. (2005). New Zealand Social Work-Contexts and Practice. Melbourne, Oxford
University Press.
Connolly, M., Harms, L. (Eds.) (2009).Social Work Contexts and Practice (2
nd
Edition). Oxford
University Press Victoria Australia.

Consedine, R. & Consedine, J. (2005). Healing Our History; The Challenge of the
Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland. Penguin Books,

Corrigan, R. (1999). Statutory Registration of Social Workers; The Registration Project team.
Social Work Review 12(1), 18-23, Dec 1999.

Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Maori: Tona tika, tona pono-The validity and integrity of Maori
Research, In Tollich (2001) Research Ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp.35-52)
Auckland Pearson Education New Zealand Ltd.

Cumming, A. (1985). How Nonviolence works. Jetset Print; Nonviolent Action Network
Aotearoa.

Curson, B. (1998). Draft Position Paper on the Registration of Social Work practitioners, Social
Work Review Vol. X (4), pp 27-29.

97

Davies, B., Flemmen, A. B., Gannon, S., Laws, C., & Watson, B., (2002). Working on the
ground; a collective biography of the Feminine Subjectivities: Mapping the traces of
Power and knowledge, in Social Semiotics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2002. Carfax Publishing.
Drewery, W. (2005). Why We Should Watch What We Say, Position calls, Everyday speech
and the production of Relational Subjectivity. Paper for Theory and Psychology Sage
Publications Vol. 15(3): 305-324.

Du Plessi, R. & Alice, L. ((Ed) (1998). Feminist thought in Aotearoa New Zealand, Connections
and Differences. Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Durie, E. (1991). A Peaceful Solution. In Mana Tiriti-The Art of Protest and Partnership.
Wellington: Haeata Collective, Project Waitangi, Wellington City Art Gallery. Daphne
Brasell Associates Press, p. 64-69.

Durie, M. (1995) .Maori and the State: Professionalism and Ethical implications for a Bicultural
Public Service, article Public Sector Vol. 17 No. 1, March 1994, reproduced Te
Kamako -Social Work Review, Jan 1995, Vol. VII No. 1.pg 2-5.

Durie, M. (1998). Te Mana Te Kawanatanga; the Politics of Maori Self Determination. ,
Auckland Oxford University Press.

During, S. (1985). Post modernism or Post colonial? New Zealand Landfall: 820, pg 366-380

Everiit, A. Hardiker, P., Littlewood, J. & Mullender, A. (1992). Epistemology and theory in social
work. Series Editor Jo Campling. Applied research for better practice. (pp.16-34)
London: The Macmillan Press.

Figueira-McDonough J., (2007). The Welfare State and Social Work. USA, Sage Publishers.

Fleras, A. & Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa; Indigenous politics and Ethnic
Relations in New Zealand. Oxford University Press, Australia.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language.
New York: Pantheon Books.

Freeman, J., Epston, D., Lobovitz, D., (1997). Playful solutions to serious problems-Narrative
Therapy, Children and their Family. London Norton Books.

Gibbs A. (2005). The Paradigm, Contexts and Enduring Conflicts of Social Work Research, in
L.M Stoneham (Ed.) Advances in Sociology research, Volume 2(pp. 135-164). USA:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Hartman A. (1992). In search of Subjugated Knowledge, Editorial, Social Work, Publication
National Association of Social Workers, Inc, Pg. 483-484. Vol. 37, No. 6, Nov.

Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act (2003) .Wellington, New Zealand
Government.

98

Jackson, M. (2010). Canvassing the Treaty. Maori Television Documentary Saturday 6
th
Feb.

Jenkins, A. (2009). Becoming Ethical. Russell House Publishing, Great Britain.
Laenui, P. (1999). Process of Decolonization-Google Colonization and Decolonization,
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KfWYgAOXr7Gj:www.opihi.com/sovereignty/colon
isation.htm, retrieved 1/06/2006

McNabb, D. (1997). Registration for New Zealand Social Workers? Social Work Review IX(4),
pp43-44.

Maharey, S. (1998). Social Policy Social Work and Professionalism, Social Work Review X (4)
pp25-26.
Meinert, R., Pardeck, J.T., & Kreuger, L. (2000). The Dis juncture of science and social work.
Social Work: Seeking relevancy in the twenty first century (pp.41-55). New York;
Haworth Press.

Ministry Social Development (2002). Social Workers Registration Bill Summary of Submissions
19
th
March
Ministry Social Policy (2000). Registration of Social Workers Discussion Paper .July
Minister of Social Welfare (1986). Puao-Te-Ata-Tu. Wellington: Government Printer.

Mohan, B. (2005). Reinventing Social Work; Reflections on the Metaphysics of Social
Practice. Edwin Mellen Press, Wales.

Munford R., & Nash, M., (Eds.) (1994). Social Work in Action. Dunmore Press; Palmerston
North.
Murphy Stewart K. (2006). Bi cultural Practice theory applied to current initiatives of the Child,
Youth Family to implement a differential response model in the management of reports
and investigation into child abuse and neglect. Paper submitted for Masters Social
Work, Massey.

New Zealand Parliamentary Library (2001). Social Workers Registration Bill 2002, No 155-2.
Bills Digest No 885. Published by Parliamentary Library Service Wellington N.Z.

O Brien, M. (2009). Conference paper International Federation of Social Workers Auckland
New Zealand, November.

ODonoghue, K. (2001). Registration News Page,
http://www.geocities.com/kieranodsw/registartion.html

ODonoghue, K. (2003). Restorying Social Work Supervision. Palmerston
North Dunmore Press.

Orange, C. (1990). An Illustrated History of The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, Allen & Unwin.

99

Parliamentary Debates Hansard (2003). House of Representatives First session Forty
Seventh Parliament 2002-2003 Parliament Tuesday 1
st
April 2003.

Patton M.Q (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3
rd
Edition. USA; Sage
Publication Inc.

Payne, M. (1997). Modern Social Work Theory (2nd Edition). London MacMillan Press.

Payne, M. (2006). What is Professional Social Work? (Revised 2
nd
Edition). Bristol United
Kingdom, The Policy Press.

Pinkola Estes, C. (1992). Women with Run with the Wolves. United Kingdom, Random House
Press.

Power, L. & Sharp, J. (2001). Feminist Geopolitics, Space and Politicy. Vol.5, No.3, 165-176,
Carfex Publishers Pennsylvania State University.

Randal, H., (1997). Competency practice and its Regulation-Debating the issues around
Registration and Professionalism of Social Work in New Zealand. Article Aotearoa New
Zealand Association Social Workers, Social Work Review, March-June.

Rangihau, J. (1987). Beyond Crisis; address to the First New Zealand Conference on Social
Work Education 28-30th August. Christchurch
Reid, P, Gardiner, D., Smith, C., Smith, G., Reynolds, P. Smith Tuhiwai, L, Moewaka
Barnes, H., (2007). Tikanga Rangahau, Kaupapa Maori methodologies in
Research. Maori and Indigenous Analysis Limited, New Zealand.

Roy, A. (2005). An ordinary persons guide to Empire. New Delhi. Penguin Books.
Seed Pihama, J. (2005). Maori Ancestral Sayings: A Juridical Role? Paper from Te
Matahauariki Institute Occasional paper Series, Number 10 2005. Published
Hamilton, Te Matahauariki Institute, University of Waikato.

Shannon, P. (1999). The Operation of Power in Aotearoa New Zealand, Discussion paper
for Community Studies University of Otago.

Shepard, M. (2004). Appraising and Using Social Research in the Human Services: An
Introduction for Social Work and Health Professionals. Jessica Kingsley Publisher
London.

Smith, L.T. (2005). Decolonizing Methodologies research and Indigenous Peoples.
University of Otago Press, Dunedin.

Smithers, R. (2007). Biculturally Appropriate? Pakeha Social Workers Discuss Biculturalism. A
Research report presented in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of
Masters of Social Work Applied, Massey University, Palmerston North.

Social Workers Registration Act (2003). Parliamentary Publications Wellington N.Z.
100

Social Workers Registration Bill (2002) Governmental Bill. Parliamentary Library services.
Parliament, Wellington New Zealand.

Social Workers Registration Bill (2002). As reported from Social Services Committee
Commentary. Parliamentary Library Services. Parliament Wellington New Zealand.

Social Workers Registration Bill (2002). Explanation Notes General Policy Statement.
Parliamentary Library services. Parliament Wellington New Zealand.

Social Workers Registration Board (2007) Competency website
Retrieved 3/3/09

Spender, D. (1980). Man Made Language., New York Routledge & Kegan Paul.
The Ministry of Social Policy (2000). Registration of Social Workers, Discussion Paper, June.

The Ministry of Social Policy (2001). Registration of Social Workers Consultation summary
Report, May.

Timeline http://www.nzhistory .net.nz/politics/treaty-timeline/treaty-events-1800-1849,
(retrieved 25/11/09).

Vaggioli, D F.(1896). History of New Zealand and its Inhabitants, English translation 2000 by J
Crockett. University of Otago Press.

Ventura, N. (2005). Personal communication. Southern Chair Social Action Council,
California.

Walker H. (1995). Where is Puao-te-ata-tu and the Department of Social Welfare? in Te
Kamako-Social Work Review, January, Volume VII, Number 1.
Pg 12-16.
Walsh- Tapiata, W. (1997). Raukawa Social Services: Origins and future directions. Waiho ma
to iwi e whakarite. Kei a ratou te kaha ki te hapai ake I a ratou ki te Ao Marama; Leave
it to the iwi to decide for only they can take then selves into the future. Raukawa Social
Services.
Walsh -Tapiata, W. (2003). The Praxis of Research-What Can Social Services Learn from the
Practice of Research in an Iwi setting? Social Work Review Te Komako, VI, 25-29.
Walsh-Tapiata, W. (2009). Lecture notes Research Maori Perspectives, Applied Research
paper 179.891. Massey University, Palmerston North.
Wards, I. (1832). The Shadow of the land-a study of British Policy and racial conflicts in New
Zealand 1832-1852. (retrieved www.teaohou.natlib.govt.nz 17.01.10)

Webber Dreadon, E. (1999). He Taonga Mo Matou Tipuna: A gift handed down by our
ancestors. Te Kamako III (December) Social Work Review Vol. XI No 4.ANZASW.

Webber Dreadon, E. (2009). Law and lore: Te Tiriti Discussion, personal correspondence.
101

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic Content Analysis, Sage University Paper; Quantitative applications
in the Social Sciences, Sage Publication USA

White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends New York, Norton

Wilks, T. Social Work and Narrative Ethics (2005). British Journal of Social Work35,
1249-1264 Oxford University Press. British Association of Social Workers.

Wilson, M., & Yeatman A. Eds (1985). Justice & Identity, Antipodean Practices .Bridget
William Publisher Wellington New Zealand.

Winslade, J. (2002). Workshop-Face to face with Difference: Mediation and discursive
Positioning; paper for International Association Counselors/ New Zealand Association
Of Counselors Conference, Waipuna Hotel & Conference Centre, June. Auckland
Recording Service Ltd.

Winslade, J. & Monk, G., (2000).Narrative Mediation; A New Approach to Conflict Resolution.
San Francisco Jossey Bass Publishers.

Woller, P. (2005). Nga Hahi O Ngai Tamarawaho A History of Religion within the Hapu of Ngai
Tamarawaho. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
of Masters in Arts in Maori Studies at Massey University; Palmerston North.

Yensen, H., Hague K., Mc Creanor, T., Kelsey, J., Nairn, M., & Williams, D. (Eds.) (1989).
Honoring the Treaty, An Introduction for Pakeha to the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland.
Penguin Books.

Discount Indigenous Voices at Your Peril-Lost Voice 5 AUGUST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discount Indigenous Voices at Your Peril-Lost Voice 5 AUGUST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lost Voices:

Why is Te Tiriti not named in the Social Work Registration

You might also like