Bills

Social Workers Registration (Commencement of Act) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:02): I rise to speak to this piece of legislation which amends the commencement provisions of the Social Workers Registration Act 2021 so that the scheme will commence by proclamation rather than automatically on 1 July 2025. While the change appears technical its purpose is to delay the operation of the statutory registration scheme for social workers and allow additional time for implementation work to be completed.

This statutory registration scheme is a significant reform. It is the first of its kind in Australia and involves a range of regulatory matters which I will detail in a moment, but I would also like to speak briefly to the history of this legislation and to pay tribute, in so doing, to the work of the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has long fought for social workers to be included in some form of registration scheme as we have for a number of allied health professionals, who initially were registered under state statutory schemes and who then transferred to the commonwealth government via the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).

We have supported registration for social workers for some time. It was very disturbing to me to learn, I think in the lead-up to 2018 or perhaps even earlier, that someone could have a non-bachelor degree qualification and, as we say, hang up a shingle and call themselves a social worker, which in the common understanding carries a lot more rigorous training and qualifications than some of the courses that people use—or maybe even no training at all—to call themselves a social worker. We do not tolerate it for a whole range of other professionals who operate in a similar space. As someone who has once been registered as a physiotherapist, I think we all understand why those things are important. I have worked side-by-side with social workers in the health system at the Repat hospital, before the Labor Party closed it the first time around.

We certainly value their work and their professionalism. They play an incredibly important role, which I think is better recognised these days in that we better understand that the social supports for people—whichever part of the health system they may be in—are incredibly important not just to their wellbeing but to ensuring that they are able to recover safely at home. Without social workers those aspects of a multidisciplinary team could be ignored, so I certainly support measures for social workers.

It has been a complex journey. As a minister in the Marshall term of government, we had attempted to ensure that there was a national scheme which would mirror what happens with other health professions. That turned out to be too difficult, so we have had a South Australian scheme since 2021. It has been quite a complex process, including decisions about title protections, scope of practice, qualifications and regulatory oversight. It is unfortunate that there is considerable work still to be done in 2025 to finalise these details. I would have thought that the minister—who has a much narrower portfolio than other ministers—might have actually been able to make this one work, but that was not to be.

I understand that the Social Workers Registration Board has been engaging with stakeholders over recent months, and that work is ongoing. While there has been useful consultation, this delay highlights that the government has not adequately prepared for commencement within the legislated timeframe. That is very unfortunate and I think reflects poorly on the minister.

However, we do recognise that having an incomplete or unclear regulatory scheme is a risk to others. On that basis, we do not oppose this measure but will continue to monitor the government's progress and hope that they will put this into acceleration mode and listen appropriately to the relevant stakeholders.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:07): I rise today to speak on the Social Workers Registration (Commencement of Act) Amendment Bill 2025. This is a very technical bill that seeks to amend the Social Workers Registration Act 2021 so that the scheme commences on the day fixed by proclamation.

Honourable members would be well aware that the Social Workers Registration Scheme was originally set to commence on 1 July 2025, only a few short weeks away. This bill will provide an extension of time before the commencement but does not set a specified date. The minister has not provided any kind of indicative timeline as to when the scheme might be expected to come into operation.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that the Social Workers Registration Board has undertaken in terms of consultation, research and benchmarking for this important scheme. It has broad support and will be the first of its kind in Australia, enabling the Social Workers Registration Board to oversee the social work profession in South Australia to both protect the public and uplift the sector by establishing codes of conduct, professional standards and ethical guidelines, enhancing accountability and professionalism.

However, it has become apparent in recent weeks and months that the scheme is not ready, with the board yet to release the scope and the guidelines for the scheme, let alone information about the policies and processes for registration. There have been significant concerns in the sector about the negative impact that the new registration scheme may have on existing workers and fears that experienced domestic violence and child protection workers could leave the sector, which is already struggling with workforce shortages.

It is clear that this is a complex area with unique challenges. The social work sector is incredibly diverse, with a wide range of cohorts working in varied roles with different needs and requirements. As the minister has highlighted, a range of pathways are required to recognise relevant qualifications and experience, and it is vital that we get the settings right so that this nation-first scheme works in the interests of the sector, individual workers and all the clients they serve so diligently.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge a letter I received from the Australian Services Union. I just want to quote a statement from the letter highlighting the issues here:

Over the past year, our members have raised concerns about the complexity of the proposed registration process, including its potential impact on workforce retention, recognition of existing experience, cost, and accessibility. We were particularly concerned for peer-support workers and those who are hired because of their lived experience or cultural knowledge, rather than an academic qualification. We have repeatedly conveyed these concerns directly to the Social Workers Registration Board, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Child Protection, the Minister for Human Services and the Premier's office.

These are a range of issues that I think ought to be addressed.

On a personal note, I have been told by close family members who are employed as social workers that there has been a growing sense of uncertainty and stress in the sector. As the 1 July deadline looms, the lack of detail provided by the board to date has exacerbated this uncertainty. I am sure there will be many sighs of relief that the commencement of the scheme is being postponed until these issues can be resolved.

It is essential that this scheme is not rushed and that this time extension is used for further consultation and engagement across the sector to ensure that we get pathways and settings right, not only to strengthen the social work sector but also to protect the vulnerable clients who rely on its essential services and support. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:11): I rise today to support this bill, with great reservation, because this is not the first time this bill has needed an extension, and this is not the first time this minister has not ensured that the homework was done. In fact, it is not the first time this minister has come before this place asking for such an extension because she has not done the work that is required for the important work of the registration of social workers.

Members would be well aware that this has been a live issue in this parliament since 2018. The bill that we debate today looks to an act that comes from 2021. This is a further extension, with no end date on it, on a previous extension that was asked for in 2023 that saw this bill and this act meant to come into force on 1 July this year.

In fact, in March 2025, Professor Wendt of the Social Workers Registration Board informed the Budget and Finance Committee that she remembers the day, sitting in parliament, when the proclamation day was set for 1 July 2025. She always thought, she told the Budget and Finance Committee, that this was achievable. She informed that committee that the Social Workers Registration Board has worked efficiently and with a really quality team to ensure that the scheme is ready to go on 1 July 2025. Indeed, she informed the parliament that all progress had been reported to the board and to the government and that they were tracking well for 1 July.

But lo and behold, last sitting week, this minister, Minister Hildyard, yet again not having done her homework, rams through the lower house, suspending standing orders, yet another extension for the Social Workers Registration Scheme. This extension that she is asking for does not even have an end date. I flag that I will be seeking an amendment that there be an end date and that this important body of work commences on 1 December this year. We were informed in March 2025 that everything was on track for 1 July this year. I look forward to the government explaining why they will not be able to support a start date of 1 July this year.

I note that Cindy Smith of the Australian Association of Social Workers has had great frustration dealing with this government and, in particular, this minister, and that her correspondence of 11 June 2025 to the Social Workers Registration Board, which invited anyone with questions to ask them, outlined a range of questions that I will seek the government to answer on the record, because the social workers association is still waiting for an answer to these particular questions.

So my questions to the government are: what model did the Social Work Registration Board recommend to government? Which workforces are proposed to be impacted, included or excluded? When did the Social Workers Registration Board first propose its model to government? Which aspects of the proposed model did government oppose? What pathway options are being considered for nonqualified people? How much were the proposed registration fees and what was the fee structure? How much of the $4.7 million commitment is remaining to deliver the scheme? Has government committed to fund any further outlay or shortfall?

What actions have you taken to advocate for national registration of social workers? Have you advocated to the SA health minister and Premier for national registration through the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS)? What new consultation processes will occur? Will the Social Workers Registration Board consult on regulations on the act before the commencement of the scheme? Did the Social Workers Registration Board include a requirement for registered social workers to hold professional indemnity insurance? Why did two Social Workers Registration Board members resign?

AHPRA publishes announcements regarding board members, resignations, retirements and appointments on its website. Why was this not communicated in this case? There are now nine months (this was dated June) until the 2026 March state election, eight months before the government enters caretaker mode. Has the SA government provided the Social Workers Registration Board with any commitment that the scheme will be delivered in this term of government and was a regulatory impact assessment undertaken?

I note also the concerns raised by the ASU and sent to, I believe, all members of the upper house, and I acknowledge their concerns because, while they and their workers have long advocated for social work registration, there were so many questions still unanswered, not just in March this year but in April, May and now June this year, about how this social work registration scheme will work.

Advocates for a social work registration scheme have long been confused about why this government and the previous government have allocated this portfolio to child protection. Social workers work across a range of fields and health or human services have always been the preferred portfolios. So I also ask the government, in addition to the questions of the AASW: will this government move social work registration into the portfolio of a competent minister in either the health or human services portfolios? With that, I look forward to those questions being answered, not just for this council but for the people of South Australia and those who will be affected by this scheme.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:17): I rise very briefly to indicate my support for the bill. I do not propose to speak at length, because I think the key arguments have already been raised by others. In indicating my support, in particular I reference the advocacy from some of the key organisations that work in this space. I note that I received a letter—the honourable member previously referred to it—from the Australian Services Union, in which they welcome the government's decision to delay the commencement of the registration scheme to allow for further refinement and consultation.

I also note a submission made by the South Australian Council of Social Service in December of last year, a submission to the Social Workers Registration Board on draft definitions of social work services and scope of practice. In that submission, on page 4, they note:

…we do not believe that the proposed definition of Social Work Services…and the Scope of Practice…proposed are workable or likely to support the effective regulation of social workers. If implemented as proposed we believe there will be significant disruption and dislocation of the workforce that will impact on access to high quality care and services by some of the most vulnerable people in South Australia.

There is obviously broad support for the need to register social workers in our state, but it is clear from some of the concerns of the sector that we need to get that right and, in that context, providing the government with a bit more time to work through those issues makes sense. I do want to impress upon the government the importance of seeing this resolved, and of course I do not want to see this matter being kicked into the never-never. It is an important issue that should be resolved. In light of the stakeholders' feedback, I am supportive of the government's bill.

The PRESIDENT: I have the Hon. Ms Bonaros listed. What I will do is go to the minister to conclude the debate, but if the Hon. Ms Bonaros would like to make a contribution she can do it at clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (11:20): I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Ms Lensink, the Hon. Ms Lee, the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Simms. I appreciate the comments that have been put onto the record, including the importance that this is not rushed, because of the complexity. I would reinforce the sentiments that I think have been mentioned here today, which are how important it is that we do get this right. Further refinement and consultation, as was quoted by the Hon. Mr Simms from a stakeholder, I think really does capture what is intended by this bill. I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I refer the minister to the correspondence of Cindy Smith of the Australian Association of Social Workers in response to an invitation by the Social Workers Registration Board in an email of 12 June 2025, entitled 'Communiqué and invitation to answer questions'. The range of questions I have already read out, but I will do them one by one. I note that when Cindy Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Social Workers, responded to that communiqué and invitation to ask questions by the Social Workers Registration Board in their regular updates, she received a response from Minister Hildyard's office. An unnamed person in the office of the Hon. Katrine Hildyard MP noted:

The Social Workers Registration Board has forwarded your correspondence on to the office of the Hon. Katrine Hildyard MP for consideration.

Once again, thanks for your email.

So my question to the minister is: what model did the Social Workers Registration Board recommend to government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the following: the registration of social workers in the Australian context is highly complex, as I think we have all acknowledged here. The Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) has conducted significant consultations with government, non-government, peak bodies, unions and people in New Zealand and England to understand the opportunities the South Australian legislation provides. The government, through the SWRB, intends to publish draft pathways to registration, should this bill pass, for further discussion with the sector.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not sure what question that answered but it was not the question that I asked. What model did the Social Workers Registration Board recommend to government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To clarify, the government, through the board, intends to publish draft pathways to registration, should this bill pass. Obviously, discussions around models is the final decision of this government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would like to do my questions first because I feel like it is important. That has not been answered. Perhaps you could take on notice what model the Social Workers Registration Board recommended to government, or the multitude of models there could be. Obviously, there has been extensive consultation. I imagine there was a model that was recommended to government and, given Minister Hildyard has offered to answer these questions, I would hope that an answer will be forthcoming today.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to provide information that is not precluded through cabinet-in-confidence provisions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which workforces were proposed to be impacted, included or excluded? I will note in asking these questions, while this might be cabinet-in-confidence information at some stage, a social work registration scheme, by its very nature, will have to be public at some stage. We have been waiting years now. We have already given the government an 18-month extension on the many years that this minister already had to do her homework and has not yet done, so: which workforces were proposed to be impacted, included or excluded?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To respond to the comment about it being public, of course that is the case, which is why I alluded, in the answer to the previous question, that the intention is to publish draft pathways once they are refined. As we have mentioned, the registration of social workers is highly complex and hence the importance of information sharing, of discussion, of refinement over a period to enable the workforce to be ready for registration is highly important and that needs to occur without disrupting vital services to vulnerable families. The government's intention is that there not be an impact to any workforces.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which workforces?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Any workforces engaged with social work services.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When did the Social Workers Registration Board first propose its model to government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this is cabinet-in-confidence information.

The CHAIR: I have given the Hon. Ms Bonaros the opportunity to make her contribution at clause 1 before we can continue on; is that okay?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, but I am finding the line of responses frustrating as well.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, if you can make your contribution, then we will continue on.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I apologise, particularly to honourable members, for missing that opportunity at the second reading stage but do rise to echo the sentiments that have been expressed today and the frustrations that have been expressed today. It probably has helped, listening to some of these answers, because Rachel Sanderson was still a member of parliament when we had the inquiry into this issue. I served on that committee and it was a great outcome in terms of a committee process.

It was unusual to have a minister serving on committees, but she insisted she go on that committee so that she could be abreast of all the issues that we were going to be considering, and well done to her for doing that because it resulted in a report, and it resulted in, ultimately, what has led to this piece of legislation. The fact that we have been waiting since 2021 to come today to hear things like, 'this is a highly complex area' and 'once they are refined' and 'open-ended proposals'—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: 'The dog ate my homework.'

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —and the rest of it, it is not just laughable; in fact, it is not laughable, it is a slap in the face to everyone who has worked so hard to get to this point. I acknowledge the work, of course, of the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Michelle Lensink in this area and others who have put in the hard yards.

I remember the meeting I had last year with Minister Hildyard's team and her in my office saying, 'We just need a bit more time. We just need a little bit more time.' Well, we gave them that little bit more time and now they are back saying, 'We need more time. It's open-ended.' Those conversations went along the lines of, 'You have to do this before the next election.' Leaving this open-ended now gives nobody any comfort or certainty that it is going to happen before the next election.

We started under a Liberal government with this proposal. We are getting towards the end of what is—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It started under Weatherill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, well before that, but at least we were moving forward. There was a path, and the only roadblock in that path since this government came into power appears to be Minister Hildyard. I do not know how highly complex an area this could be. I am sure if you ask the stakeholders who have been engaged with this they do not know how much more highly complex this could be, but I will tell you what: it does smell a bit like, 'We've put this on the back burner and not done a lot in the intervening months.'

You cannot come to me—whenever it was at the end of last year—and say, 'We're nearly there. We're nearly there. We're nearly there,' and now possibly be saying, 'We need an open-ended change to the bill.' The reason a date was put in the legislation in the first place is that there was a level of mistrust in terms of actually being serious about getting this off the ground and up and running. Here we are today having this debate, which confirms all the concerns that we have had previously.

We have just had a child protection debate. The Hon. Tammy Franks went to great lengths during that child protection debate to ask about these particular issues. When we talk about things that are highly complex, the only thing that seems to be highly complex is wrapping our heads around Minister Hildyard's priorities when it comes to these issues. That is lost on all of us, and it continues to be lost on all of us.

I am not going to rub it in. I think I have made my point; it is at clause 1. I have made my point. I agree with the sentiments and frustrations that have been raised. I certainly do not support an open-ended bill. If there is a date that is proposed, I am willing to contemplate inserting a new date, but it better be a reasonable one; it better be a reasonable proposal.

I think the minister is now on notice that she needs to do better in this space. People deserve better. The people who have put in the hard yards on this—it is not us—deserve better, because all we have done right now is string them along, at least since 2021, that something is coming, and now we do not even know what the recommended models are that we should be following. It is not good enough. It is not good enough in here and it is certainly not good enough for the people who have put in the hard yards to be told that, 'We're just not there yet.' That is all I wanted to say.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would like to unpack a bit the response of the minister in this place. I acknowledge that it is not her portfolio area. She is clearly aware that there is a lot of frustration from the Liberal opposition and crossbench members about this issue, which has been very well articulated as going on for several years, but I do not think it is fair to hide behind cabinet-in-confidence, because the correspondence has been submitted to the minister. I am sure the Association of Social Workers is happy for the model that it has submitted to the government to be placed on the public record in this place, so I again put to the minister: can she respond in some detail about what that model was?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure that I can provide the exact information the honourable member is requesting, but what I can do is discuss some of the potential pathways that have been put forward. I think the key point here is that these are still being refined. I think almost everyone mentioned in their second reading contribution the need to ensure the consultation with the sector. The various voices—I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth—within the sector need to be confident that what we end up with, which is after all going to be nation-leading registration, is going to work.

It has been commented several times that there would be a preference for a national scheme, and I think that is probably reasonably well and widely held. Obviously, whilst a national scheme can be developed independently, it would be fair to expect that, should such a scheme progress, they will look to what will likely be the only jurisdiction that has a registration scheme in place to inform that process. I think that is why it is so important that we have the right model in every aspect that is important.

Whilst I cannot provide the full details that the honourable member has indicated, some of the things that need to be concerned with are the various levels of registration. Obviously, where someone has the full social work bachelor or other qualification, that might be relatively clear, but what we have are situations where people have worked in the sector for a long period of time: for example, one suggestion was that if someone had been in the sector for six years then that might be an appropriate level for an alternative pathway, a provisional registration through that experience.

Qualification and experience could also be a separate strand of that model: for example, those working in social work but are enrolled in one of the prescribed social work qualifications. That could then lead to a provisional registration. Once that qualification was completed, then potentially that would result in full registration.

There could also be a limited registration pathway for those who do not have that level of practice experience which is considered sufficient or are not currently enrolled but are providing services, but obviously with conditions because the whole point of this legislation and registration is to be able to ensure confidence in the services that are being provided and so that we know, if you like, what we are getting when it comes to someone who is saying that they are a social worker, that, after all, as was alluded to in the second reading contributions, was the whole point of this.

They are some of the potential pathways, but because there is still a lot to be done so that we do have that confidence, so that those within the sectors can be very sure that their voices have been heard, their concerns have been listened to, that is why it is important that we actually get to that stage before saying it will be this, this and this.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would just like to respond because this minister—and I acknowledge it is not her portfolio—is valiantly trying to defend someone else's work or lack thereof. While we have said that this is a complex matter, it is a lot less complex than lots of other areas of public policy that we manage to resolve within a shorter space of time than this. In some ways I think we feel compelled to support this because it may well be a risk to people who work in this space to proceed because, quite frankly, the minister has not done the work.

I would have thought that there would be other jurisdictions overseas where learnings could be adopted here in Australia. Indeed, if we compare to an area where there are levels of complexities it is nursing registration because we have a range of qualifications, whether it is enrolled nurses, registered nurses, midwives—who have additional training—or nurse practitioners, there are multi-layers there. That is probably not 100 per cent comparable, but certainly they could lend themselves to this space and could potentially be adopted, so I do not accept that it has taken this long at all.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which aspects of the proposed model did government oppose?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I have just outlined some of the potential features of a model but it would not be, I guess, accurate to say—the government is the final decision-maker on any model. Obviously we are not opposing our own model; this is all part of the development process.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What pathway options are being considered for non-qualified people?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I just outlined in the response to the Hon. Ms Lensink some of the features that could be part of that, but, importantly, as I mentioned earlier, through the board the government would intend to publish draft pathways to registration should this bill pass and then those can be further discussed with the sector.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Noting this scheme was meant to start in just over two weeks, how much were the proposed registration fees and what was the fee structure?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A final subscription structure is yet to be decided on, but I think it is fair to say that a good part of the government's thinking around this was not wanting to introduce a new cost at this point in time. Obviously, hardworking South Australians are struggling with cost of living at present in any case and so that was part of the thinking.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So is the government saying this is a cost-of-living measure to cut costs to social workers by not registering them?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the final cost structure is yet to be determined.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given this scheme was meant to start in around about two weeks, what was the ballpark figure of the registration scheme fees?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not think it is accurate to say that we can say a ballpark figure. Obviously, with various models that could have various features for the types of pathways that I mentioned as possibilities earlier they would have a variety of potential fees.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There was $4.7 million committed to deliver this scheme. How much of that $4.7 million is currently expended and what are the plans going forward?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the Social Workers Registration Board is working within its budget. That is the extent of the information that I have at this time. Clearly, the intention of the government is to progress this, and that will be funded appropriately.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the government considering additional funding, given they are needing an additional timeframe to deliver this scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I said, currently the board is working within its budget.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has the government committed to fund any further outlay or shortfall?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: At this stage, that would be a hypothetical because, according to my advice, the board is currently working within its budget.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What period of time was that $4.7 million allocated over?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have been provided with some advice, which I hope may answer the honourable member's question. The budget for the social worker registration scheme was allocated to the Department for Child Protection as part of the 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Review. The original budget was $4.7 million over four years. I am advised that a delay in the commencement of the act will not impact the overall resources required for the scheme, particularly given the first two years were focused on the implementation and establishment that we have been discussing.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What actions has the government undertaken to advocate for a national registration of social workers scheme, noting indeed that the then minister, Jack Snelling, first advocated for this back in the Weatherill era?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised it is in many ways a very broad question. As the honourable member referred to, it was actually advocated for by a previous Minister for Health, Jack Snelling, some years ago. My understanding is that the matter has been raised in a number of different forums, likely by a number of different ministers over time, including recently.

As was mentioned certainly in the contributions on the original bill, I think there is a reasonably widespread acceptance in South Australia that ideally we would have a national scheme. If a national scheme had progressed in the timeframes that many would have liked, we would not be here today. However, given that has not progressed in the timeframe that many would have liked, it is the responsibility of the state government to do what we can within this state parliament and with our legislative instruments, hence the bringing forward and successful passing of this act. I think it is probably fair to say that various ministers will continue to advocate at a national level.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is there anyone who would advocate for a national registration scheme for social workers being housed within a child protection portfolio?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned, I think there has been advocacy from various ministers at many points in time over many years.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question was: does anyone advocate that this be housed within a child protection portfolio at a national level? I have never heard it advocated for. I would imagine that anyone who does advocate for this might be an outlier, so I am wondering if there is somebody advocating for a national registration scheme for social workers to be housed within the child protection portfolio.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think, from my experience of government, the first issue is whether we can get in this case a national scheme. If we get to that stage then there would be discussions about where that might be housed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With respect, though, these national meetings do happen in portfolio silos, and surely they would be better housed in a health or human services silo if you are going to look at registration of social workers. I cannot imagine child protection is going to take the lead on this. That is why my question was: who was advocating for it to be housed within child protection? I imagine the answer is no-one, and I would hope that would be the answer, but I will leave it for the minister to come back if that is in fact the Malinauskas government position at a federal level or whether indeed the position is to house this within health or human services. In regard to regulations for this act when it finally does commence, if it does commence, will the Social Workers Registration Board consult on those regulations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did the Social Workers Registration Board include a requirement for registered social workers to hold professional indemnity insurance? This has been an ongoing issue of some concern and I would hope that there is an answer here.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that legal advice, or advice, is being sought by the board on this type of matter.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is it the intention of government that there will be a requirement for registered social workers to hold professional indemnity insurance under this scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That would depend on the outcome of the advice that might be received.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the government does not have a position; it is just going to wait for legal advice to tell it what the government's position is? Is that the answer of the government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As the honourable member would be aware, government takes into account various advice before making a decision. At this stage, the only information I have is that which I have communicated. Obviously, any decision will be communicated when available.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why did two members of the Social Workers Registration Board resign and why was this not more formally communicated, as happens in other similar bodies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is not for the government or the Social Workers Registration Board to disclose reasons for member changes. As I have discussed in other debates in this place, members can have many reasons for why they may cease to continue in a particular role. My understanding is that normally AHPRA publishes announcements regarding board member resignations; what AHPRA therefore does is obviously not for me to comment on. One could speculate that given the board and the office are in an implementation period perhaps that may have played into it, but obviously that is just a speculation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There are now nine months until the March 2026 state election and eight months before this government enters caretaker mode. Has the South Australian government provided the Social Workers Registration Board with any commitment that the scheme will be delivered in this term of the Malinauskas government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The intention of the government is to be able to ensure that we can bring confidence to the sector that we have listened to their concerns and that we have worked through all of the various matters that are raised, and that therefore they can be comfortable with a scheme that values this important work. Obviously, it is in everyone's interest if that can occur as soon as possible, but the outcome has to be the overriding consideration. We want to get it right.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am sure we all want to get it right, Chair. Has this government made a commitment to the Social Workers Registration Board, and indeed to social workers, that this will be delivered in this term of the Malinauskas government? It should be a yes or no answer.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I have indicated, the government's intention is to bring confidence to the sector that we have worked through all of their concerns.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will have another go. Is it the intention of the government to implement this before the election?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have just answered that question twice.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, you have not, but anyway.

The CHAIR: Minister, it is up to you.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I asked all these questions in the second reading, so in fact they could have been taken and the answers provided before we had the second reading vote, because these are all the same questions—with a couple of minor exceptions—that I asked in my second reading contribution. Was a regulatory impact assessment undertaken?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that impacts of the scheme that were flagged are cabinet-in-confidence.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did not ask what was in the regulatory impact assessment; I asked whether one was undertaken.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that the normal processes involved with preparing a cabinet submission were undertaken.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Do those normal processes involve a regulatory impact assessment as mandatory?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that impacts—I am just conscious of cabinet-in-confidence—were considered, and that advice would have been provided in the normal way.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Were those impacts regulatory and in a regulatory impact assessment mode?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can indicate that I have provided the information that I have to hand, but I think what is also important to note is that it is not as though there is no further consultation on this scheme. It is not as though the consultation has been completed. Any additional information will, of course, be taken into account.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am clearly not going to get many answers, but I just reiterate that these were not my questions that I came up with today. These were the questions of the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Social Workers, who has been asking these questions for some time now, who has asked these questions in response to a communiqué that was titled as 'an invitation to have your questions answered about the scheme' and were referred to Minister Hildyard by the board.

I would have thought, if your major stakeholder still does not know how this scheme is going to work, that we are very far away from actually having a scheme that is going to work. Heaven help us. I feel like a national scheme is the only way forward unless this minister is removed from having carriage of this portfolio. I hope the Malinauskas government takes on board the fact that the Australian Association of Social Workers, having attempted to see this scheme come to fruition, still has these questions outstanding and has not been communicated with.

I note that Cindy Smith was waiting all day for a phone call following the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill, when I was assured by the minister's office that the AASW would be communicated with that very day, a couple of sitting weeks ago. Cindy Smith waited by the phone, did not get a call from Minister Hildyard's office, and it is no surprise that the AASW are still waiting for answers on this scheme that is incredibly important to them, that is the thing they are the major stakeholder for.

I find it extraordinary that this minister yet again brings legislation before this place that is more about her inability rather than any effective advocacy for those she should be serving. With that, I do not have any further questions. They are not going to get answers today, and I do apologise to the Australian Association of Social Workers that even the parliament could not get the answers for them today that they have been seeking for so long now.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is perhaps worth reiterating the level of work that has gone into this by the sector and by the minister. In terms of consultation, the board was required to describe the scope of practice, define social work services and consult on these. Those definitions enabled the registration options that have been put forward as possibilities. Significant efforts have been made, according to my advice, to provide comprehensive information to those undertaking social work services, employers and the public ahead of the scheme's commencement.

To date, at the time of this being written, 33 face-to-face and live online information sessions have been delivered. They reached approximately 1,250 participants, with an additional 745 people viewing the recorded information session. Targeted consultation conducted from August to September last year focused on the definition of social work services and scope of practice, garnering 472 individual responses and 19 organisational submissions. Insights from people with lived experience were also gathered via three Lived Experience network focus groups, with a total of 29 participants.

The consultation process confirmed strong sector and lived experience support for the registration of social work, and I think we all accept that that is the case. A significant majority of participants, I am advised, endorsed the proposed definition of social work services and description of the scope of practice, and constructive suggestions regarding alternative wording were reviewed, informing the composition of the final definition and description.

A second round of consultation from October to December occurred. Detailed responses were provided to the submissions and follow-up meetings, and there have been numerous meetings since. I do appreciate that there are still some questions to which we are unable to provide further answers, but I think it is worth pointing out how much work has gone into this.

It is something that is important to get right, as I have mentioned, and in addition I am advised that, in relation to one of the particular matters the honourable member raised a moment ago, according to my advice the minister's adviser spoke with Ms Smith in the week commencing 2 June 2025 in relation to the bill, where, again according to my advice, Ms Smith indicated that the bill made sense.

I think it is worth mentioning that one does not assume, whether it be members in this place or stakeholders, that every single aspect of a bill will necessarily have universal and unanimous support, but it is worth putting on the record the large amount of consultation/engagement that has occurred.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to what the minister just said and the purported words of Cindy Smith to the minister's advisers, which bill made sense?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that this amendment bill was the one under discussion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My comments were about the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill with regard to best interests of the child, where I sought assurances from the minister's office that they would talk to the AASW. The AASW waited for that call and never got it, did not get that communication—it was on the previous bill, which this minister also haplessly brought before this place.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I misunderstood the intent of the comment or question from the member.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 2, line 12 [clause 3, inserted subsection (1)]—Delete 'a day to be fixed by proclamation' and substitute:

1 December 2025

We, yet again, have a social work registration commencement of act extension being requested by Minister Hildyard under her watch, this time with no end date yet again. My amendment deletes 'a day to be fixed by proclamation' and substitutes '1 December 2025', noting that back in March we were told that this scheme was imminent, that the website was created and that they were almost ready to go for 1 July this year. This now sets a start date of 1 December 2025 for this particular act.

Rather than giving the minister a blank cheque, an open-ended lack of deadline, it sets another deadline that will ensure that accountability and scrutiny is applied so we do not see this languish and that it does not spill over into the next parliament and that, if this minister does not do her job, another minister steps in and takes over and gets it done by the end of the year.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise briefly to indicate my support for this amendment, the reasons for it, and I would urge those opposite to do the same. We have heard the reasons we are here today having this debate. There is nothing unreasonable about a 1 December timeframe, given we have already done this before and particularly given some of the responses that have been provided today. I made it very clear when I spoke that I would not support this bill in the absence of a fixed date. The Hon. Tammy Franks has addressed that by providing a fixed date, and it is on that basis—that basis alone—that I am even contemplating supporting this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We very reluctantly will not be able to support this amendment. We support the sentiment of the amendment, our heart is definitely with it, but, knowing the way these things work and how close we are to caretaker government, there are potential risks.

I think the parliament's hand is forced because this is a minister who has had nearly four years to implement this, and she could not do it. I do not accept for one minute that it is so incredibly complicated—it is not brain surgery, it is not rocket science. The scope of practice can surely have been defined: we know the scope of how social workers operate and where they practice.

It is consistent with a number of things that this minister has shown. She has dragged the chain on every piece of legislation that has been before this parliament. What we are talking about is our most vulnerable, whether it is in the child protection system, in domestic and family violence or in any of the areas in the scope in which social workers operate in the health system and others. Katrine Hildyard has let vulnerable South Australians down yet again.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons that I have already outlined: the intention and the overriding principle needs to be about getting this right and bringing confidence to the sector that all of their concerns have been heard, and that they are as comfortable as they can be with a scheme that values their important work. So getting it right has to be the predominant factor here.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I want to indicate my disappointment that the Liberal opposition is not supporting this amendment. I have had some communications with the portfolio holder in the other place, and he seems to think that the government must take responsibility for their actions here. I would say that a deadline would ensure that responsibility and play the proper role of parliament to ensure accountability.

A 1 December deadline would in fact require, should the government still not have progressed far enough with this registration scheme, that the parliament would again be able to have the scrutiny that we are currently having to give some semblance of understanding to the sector about what truly was happening behind the scenes. That would happen, presumably, at the end of November this year, and at least we would have some transparency from government.

So I would just remind the opposition—and I understand the Hon. Michelle Lensink is not the lead portfolio holder here—that we are here to hold the government to account. If the opposition thinks the government is going to hold themselves to account, you might need to look for a new line of work.

With that, I note that the UK, New Zealand and other jurisdictions in the English-speaking world right across the globe have registration schemes for social workers. Indeed, an Australian social worker heading over to New Zealand or the UK would have to comply with those schemes. This is not rocket science. It has been done in other jurisdictions. Limiting the scope would allay the concerns of those who do not easily fit within a scheme, and working with the Australian Association of Social Workers would go a long way to ensuring that next time we have a debate like this—which the Liberals are certainly not going to support at this point, but perhaps before the Budget and Finance Committee—we actually get some answers for those people who are going to be most affected.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 4

Noes 13

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clause (4) and titled passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.