MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Rogue Social look after the vunerable.

Filed under: General — Alastair @ 8:50 am Sun 21st July 2013

A man who raped his daughter was able to be employed as a social worker after concealing his conviction.

Another man who called disabled people “dumb” and “homo” was also engaged in the sector, while a third worker financially exploited a client and was ordered to pay $100,000 in reparation.

All of the so-called “social workers” were unregistered and therefore not vetted by the sector’s professional standards body or able to be investigated and disciplined through its complaints tribunal.

They were just three in a long list of unsuitable candidates employed to work with vulnerable clients because there is no law requiring social workers in New Zealand to belong to the Social Worker’s Registration Board.

Complaints against unregistered workers have prompted the board and several politicians to call for mandatory registration but the Government says it won’t happen.

At least 10 serious complaints have been received by the board this year, but chair Toni Hocquard said it had no option but to note them and carry on because the workers were not within their jurisdiction.

“The concerning issue is that there is evidence to show that allowing unqualified, incompetent, inexperienced individuals to work with the most vulnerable members of society causes significant harm,” Hocquard said.

“The evidence is seen daily in the media, the courts, the hospitals and morgues throughout New Zealand.”

Hocquard said the number of complaints received were just the “tip of the iceberg”, as most people needing social workers were already vulnerable and unlikely to complain.

There are about 14,000 social workers in New Zealand. Only 4000 are registered, with the board assessing that around another 4000 more would fit the criteria, while 6000 have limited training or experience.

Those unregistered include government employees, such as 30 per cent of Child, Youth and Family’s (CYF) frontline staff.

Unregistered workers are not faced with the same scrutiny, such as police vetting and identity checks, and therefore can “slip under the radar”, the board says.

For example, the “social worker” who raped his daughter was able to find work as a volunteer in Hawke’s Bay after leaving prison due to a legal loophole. Because he had name suppression – automatic because the victim was his daughter and therefore identifiable – his conviction was not on his record. If he had been required to be registered, a full police check would have revealed the conviction, the board said.

Likewise the other cases – of exploitation and abuse – would mean the workers were struck off and therefore unable to find employment as social workers again.

The issue of compulsory registration came before the Government last year as part of the White Paper on vulnerable children, but a decision was made against mandatory registration. Labour MP Rajen Prasad said that decision was disappointing and it was now time for the government to “bite the bullet”.

He said it was not credible for vulnerable people to be put under the care of social workers who were sometimes “neither trained nor accountable”.

Green MP Holly Walker said the party was particularly concerned about the number of unregistered CYF employees.

“They’re the largest group of social workers in the country so it’s really important that they are accountable to some sort of external body,” she said.

Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows said the Children’s Action Plan, formed out of the White Paper, encouraged social workers to register with the Social Workers Registration Board.

“Where possible I encourage other professional groups of social workers to set a similar goal,” he said.

Sadly this is true right across the sector. Figures kept by organisation set up to support families with their dealings with Social workers reveal a shocking 0ver 60% are unregistered, There have no demonstrable formal training or certificate of competency issued by their peers.

To be fair that percentage dould well be skewed! The particular organisation employs many registered staff, bur usually in “Back Office” out of harms way.

We believe Vunerable famelies are entitled to the assistance and positive support of positive rather than those whose didden agenda is to destroy families.


  1. CYFSTALK has been crying out fot this for years!

    Comment by Gwahir — Sun 21st July 2013 @ 8:54 am

  2. nz: as much integrity as a sheet of single ply toilet paper.

    Comment by Peter — Wed 31st July 2013 @ 5:12 pm

  3. The Article States “Those unregistered include government employees, such as 30 per cent of Child, Youth and Family’s (CYF) frontline staff.” CYFSTALK keeps records of our clients Social workers and finds that slightly over 60% are unregistered. Even to the point when they approach their prey produce NO official support of their name or organisation.

    Comment by Gwahir — Wed 31st July 2013 @ 8:54 pm

  4. Social Work Registration for New Zealand social workers has been a significant achievement for the social work profession. Registration provides a means to gain public recognition of the social work profession, that actions are being taken to improve the quality of social work in New Zealand; and ultimately, to increase public confidence in the work being done by social workers. The registration framework provided for in the Act is the mechanism for ensuring that social workers are suitable for, and competent to, undertake the responsibilities and duties of social work. The passing of the Social Workers Registration Act has bought the social work profession in line with other professions (such as teachers, midwives, nurses, psychologists).

    Comment by Gerry F. Walsh — Thu 8th August 2013 @ 5:46 am

  5. Gerry F Walsh. Sounds nice but whether social workers are registered or not will this do anything to discourage their misandrist ideological commitment, family-wrecking activies and activism, or deliberate abuse of children by depriving them of one or both of their biological parents on the basis of crystal ball gazing about what those parents might do in the future and on the basis of recently invented p.c. beliefs and rules about parenting?

    Comment by blamemenforall — Sat 10th August 2013 @ 10:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar