Disrupting the grassroots narrative of social work in Aotearoa New Zealand

INTRODUCTION: The Aotearoa New Zealand social work professionalisation project disrupted underpinning grassroots narratives of the profession and led to decades of debate and conflict. Social work emphasises egalitarian approaches and, during the 1980s and 1990s, social workers responded to internal and external challenges of elitism, racism, and sexism. However, the ongoing professionalisation project has been at times, at odds with social justice imperatives and undermined by neoliberal drivers. METHODS: This research investigated how political, sociocultural and economic dimensions impacted on the development and initial implementation of the Social Workers Registration Act (2003) and how key actors at the time were affected. A qualitative realist research methodology has been utilised, analysing qualitative interviews with 22 participants, policy documents and archival data to clarify discourses of power and capture the voices and rich stories of those involved in the debates at the time. FINDINGS: A sociological lens was utilised to focus and frame the coalescing political, socio-cultural and economic forces that contributed to the problematising of social work professionalisation and the determining of the need for registration. Insight from some key actors at the time, including educators, the profession, tangata whenua, employers, practitioners, the State, and the public were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Examining these forces behind the professionalisation project provides a platform to consider if social work in Aotearoa New Zealand has been strengthened with registration. There are ongoing challenges and threats to the independence and social justice focus of the profession that grew alongside the grassroots of social work.

Me hoki whakamuri, kia ahu whakamua, kaneke In order to improve, evolve, and move forward, we must reflect back on what has been This Māori whakatauki/proverb considers the importance of remembering and critically reflecting upon our past in order to progress effectively.
It is useful to begin examination of this part of the history of social work in Aotearoa with an exploration of professionalisation, a process by which an occupational group aspires to professional status -shared internally and recognised externally VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 1 • 2020 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK (Beddoe, 2013;Evetts, 2006;Hunt, 2016Hunt, , 2017Olgiati, 2006). Internationally and in Aotearoa New Zealand over the decades up to the early 2000s, social work professionalisation projects gained traction (Weiss-Gal & Welbourne, 2008). These projects were politically charged, requiring strategic alliances, the evidencebased demonstration of social workers' technical knowledge and competence, the development of ethical standards, and differentiation of social work from competing and overlapping groups. Many actors became involved, including the profession, education providers, the State, employing organisations, practitioners and the public. In Aotearoa New Zealand, indigenous people and corresponding Treaty of Waitangi/ Te Tiriti O Waitangi i obligations also played a part. Together, the professionalisation and regulation projects in Aotearoa New Zealand appeared to disrupt the social work narrative of grassroots social justice strategies in local communities (Munford & Walsh-Tapiata, 2006). The projects remain open to critique because of the risk of undermining core grassroots social work values and ethos, along with the autonomy and creativity of service and education providers (Beddoe, 2018;Hunt, Staniforth, & Beddoe, 2019;O'Brien, 2005;van Heugten, 2011). In this article, we consider different political, sociocultural and economic dimensions that, together, determined the direction of the professionalisation and regulation projects, from the perspective of some of the participants at the time of the development and implementation of social worker registration.

Methods
The research was conducted as part of a doctoral study project that aimed to answer the following question: In what ways have political sociocultural and economic dimensions impacted on the development and initial implementation of the Social Workers Registration Act (SWRA) (2003) in Aotearoa New Zealand?
Qualitative realist research methodologies were utilised, analysing interviews, policy documents and archival data to explore discourses of power and enable the voices of the stakeholders from this time to be articulated and recorded. The combination of qualitative methods used served to offer validity of the analysis through the processes of crystallisation (Richardson, 1994) and triangulation of qualitative methods (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Themes from the data were conceptualised, coded, and analysed utilising NVivo software and a recursive process of theme development (Braun & Clarke, 2016). Several ethical considerations were managed including the researcher's insider role, and the identification of the inaugural Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) members. These 10 participants consented to being identified in the research and are named in the article, while the other, unnamed, participants were assured their identities would not be revealed. Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Auckland's Human Participants Ethics Committee.

Findings
The research found that grassroots approaches to social work in Aotearoa New Zealand were gradually disrupted over decades. Many forces together problematised and determined social work professionalisation in Aotearoa New Zealand. Problematising as opposed to problem solving, is the regrading of a phenomenon into a problem requiring a solution and is integral to critical consciousness providing sites of resistance and hope (Giroux, 2015). Participants close to the action at the time of social work registration development described their lived experiences, including the 'toing and froing' of the journey, the ambivalence of some and the outright opposition of others, due at least in part to issues within QUALITATIVE RESEARCH VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 1 • 2020 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK social work in Aotearoa New Zealand that first required addressing alongside changing socio-cultural, political, and economic forces.
The forces that problematised and determined social work professionalisation are summarised thematically and within each theme chronologically in Table 1: Aotearoa New Zealand social work professionalisation project brief timeline (see below). They are then discussed in more detail following the same outline.  (1840) Māori models of welfare in context of whānau, hapū and iwi (Durie, 1997;Nash, 2009) expressed in practices associated with tikanga and kaupapa. English and Māori language versions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi signed 1840, providing protection & governance but not (according to Māori version) ceding sovereignty (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999;Beddoe, 2018).

1988
Professional drive for best practice & accountability-competency based membership and self-regulation process for members through formal complaints mechanism.
1994 NZASW re-considers models of regulation (Blagdon, Taylor, & Keall, 1994 1984-1990. 1990s Increasing loss of faith in social work by State and public as a result of growing public scrutiny of failures in child protection. Regulation viewed by the State as a safety net.

1999
Labour Party manifesto pledged to establish a system of professional registration for social workers (New Zealand Parliament, 2003). 5th Labour Government elected, political sponsorship for registration secured (Maharey, 1998 (Brown, 2000) recommending that registration of the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS) workforce be given urgency.
Employer challenges: Health 1990s Rapid growth in health social work with drive to employ qualified staff & align with multidisciplinary health professionals.
1990s Development of Health Social Work Leaders network.

Practitioner voices 1980s
Tangata whenua practitioners lead challenges of racism in practice and in the profession. Issues of registration, professionalism and racism become intertwined (Fraser & Briggs, 2016 Durie (1997) outlined early Māori models of welfare in the context of whānau, hapū and iwi and expressed in practices associated with tikanga and kaupapa that operated effectively prior to the arrival of new settlers from Britain. English and Māori language versions of The Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed in 1840, provided protection and governance but did not (according to Te Tiriti version) cede sovereignty (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999). With growing colonial settlement, western models of social work developed from the mid-to late-1800s in response to the limited social and economic capital of the new arrivals, reflecting, to a degree, British education, policing, child welfare, criminal justice and mental health systems (Beddoe, 2018;Nash, 2001;Tennant, 1989;Younghusband, 1981). Nash and Miller (2013) note the establishment of a professional body (alongside the development of education and training which is discussed in the next section), signalled the emerging profession of social work. This history of the New Zealand Association of Social Workers (NZASW) was recalled by a participant who had been in practice during this time: The topic of registration was raised at the outset of the establishment of a professional association in 1964 (NZASW, 1984b, June) and revisited throughout the decades with many different views.

A collective occupation and burgeoning profession
Merv Hancock talked about registration right from when the Association started, and successive presidents have talked about that…it was around the profession growing up and being independent of sociology and psychology. A way of doing that is to have its own regulatory environment (John Dunlop, June 13, 2016).
Following a proposal by the NZASW National Executive in 1974, that a membership register of individual members be developed (Nash, 1998), the Christchurch Branch of NZASW established a working

1999-2000s
The concept of registration of social workers to embed bicultural practice as determined by Māori was re-introduced by tangata whenua leaders in the profession while remembering the historical journey and hard-won battles. 2000s Pasifika practitioners view registration as pathway to recognise and embed Pacific models of practice.
i NZASW changed its name in 1998 to Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) to reflect its bicultural priority. ii Statutory child protection and welfare services in Aotearoa New Zealand have undergone a number of reviews, Ministerial reshuffles, rebranding, and name changes. Since 31 October 2017, it is known as Oranga Tamariki (Beddoe & Randal, 1994). The competency assessment was available through two parallel pathways, with tangata whenua members developing the Niho Taniwha competency process: [we] had already discussed the name of it with John Bradley, and he said, Niho Taniwha...he said it's about the teeth… Niho Taniwha was given to ANZASW so that Māori could use it, to use their own culture when they look at the 10 standards and that was the strength of it. (Participant D, July 11, 2016) Registration to enhance the safety of the public, increase the status of the profession and promote accountability for all social workers, whether they were members of the association or not, was again ready for reconsideration by the Association and social work sector. The Association set up another working party to consider types of registration of social workers and information was collated on types of occupational regulation to encourage informed debate and develop terms of reference (Blagdon, Taylor, & Keall, 1994). The ANZASW Registration Special Project Team, formally established in May 1999, found that statutory regulation was the preferred option as it would include all practising social workers and reduce the risk to the professional body as the accountability of its members would be removed from its mandate (Corrigan et al., 2000).
The profession had for many years been pushing for a regulatory body and … I think that was around them not wanting to have to be the quasi regulatory body by doing all of the complaint procedures and having to hold social workers to account; which was an intensive task and given the litigiousness within our society …it was better for the Association not to have to be that body. (John Dunlop, June 13, 2016) A major matter of contention was deciding who could claim the title of social worker in the diverse social services sector.
People held a range of qualifications from social-work-related diplomas and degrees through to work and life experience. It was acknowledged, through professional and organisational competency processes, that grassroots life experiences usually resulted in 'good work' in many communities. However, claiming the title of social worker by some workers was clearly a public and professional safety issue. The following quotes demonstrate the complex issues regarding the assurance of recognised qualifications, while respecting the practice of longstanding, but unqualified, practitioners.
There were issues that required the profession to be regulated because there were a number of practitioners without the skills and knowledge…and that was having adverse impacts on the population…

Growth in social work education and training
Educators were at the forefront of debates considering the professionalisation of social work from the instigation of the first social work qualification, the Diploma in Social Sciences at Victoria University (Nash & Miller, 2013

Political dimensions: State voice
With the very public exposure of practice issues relating to child abuse deaths, and reports that criticised social work practice (for example, Brown, 2000;Mason, 1992), there was a growing awareness by the State, employers, and public that social work was not a regulated profession with expected minimum standards. While child protection social work represented one field of social work, the media focused on blame following child abuse tragedies and a corresponding loss of faith in social work developed for the State and public. Some politicians and their chief executives sought professionalisation opportunities for social work in order to reduce risk for their portfolios, as well as to protect the vulnerable.
One of the purposes and justifications for the SWRA (2003)  The opposition Labour Party supported social worker registration as part of its manifesto (Maharey, 1998)  QUALITATIVE RESEARCH VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 1 • 2020 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK Alongside challenges to the child rescue model, challenges of racism resulted in several reviews of child welfare (Berridge et al., 1984;Department of Social Welfare, 1986) and ultimately the development of the Children, Young Persons, & their Families Act (1989) and the family group process.
[The new legislation created a response to the] child rescue mode of practice... as once you feature [child rescue] as the springboard for your actions, then you've got to move children out rather than move the abusers out and leave the children within that context and family system that can take hold of them. (Participant C, February 21, 2017) Fears that the re-introduction of this model of practice might occur with the current Home for Life focus iii in Oranga Tamariki prompted the participant to reflect that: ...an apology to the people of New Zealand for the way that [social work] practice dealt with children over those 10, 20, 30 years, might have been sufficient to put the blocks on it happening again. (Participant C, February 21, 2017) In the 1990s, DSW attempted to increase the skill levels of its social workers though recruitment of qualified staff, continuing professional development and an internal competency process designed to ensure base-line standards for all social workers that proved costly (Keall, 1993;New Zealand Children and Young Persons Service, 1996).
[The CYPS] competency programme had proven to be an expensive failure and I think [registration] was a way of Ministers saying that we will be prepared to have an open scrutiny of the practice of social workers.
(John Dunlop, June 13, 2016) CYPS increasingly played a key role in problematising the need for registration, as despite attempts in the 1990s to professionalise through recruitment of qualified staff, targets were never met. A State-driven strategy was required.
[CYPS] would lose qualified people, particularly to the health sector who had an absolute ban on appointing anybody who wasn't qualified...What emerged…was that [CYPS] will never professionalise until social work in New Zealand had professionalised.
[Registration] never got into the formal system until we got it into [the DSW] business plan, and then it took off … I'm absolutely sure that had DSW not done that work, the Association would not have been able to affect registration. They'd been trying for years without any inroad, and it wasn't until we got a Minister to say "yes, this will be Government policy, and yes we will fund it", that it began to move. (Participant C, February 21, 2017)

Health sector voices
Social work practice in health care had been developing since the 1940s and, by the 1990s, health social workers were seeking alignment with developing tangata whenua health services and other allied health professions in the multi-disciplinary context to strengthen their position in relation to the medical and nursing professions (Beddoe & Deeny, 2012;Hunt & King, 2000).
It was about strengthening the position of the profession to try and align more closely with other professions…and to maintain that whole credibility in the multi-disciplinary context of the health service. (Buster Curson, July 12, 2016) Professional leaders were appointed to support allied health professions in the sector, including social work. While there was a general expectation that social workers employed in the health sector should hold a minimum Level B diploma iv qualification in social work (Hunt, 2016), gaps in professional accountability mechanisms were apparent: The  (Briggs & Cromie, 2001).

Joining of practitioner voices
Social workers, both Māori and non-Māori began urging one another to professionalise: Social workers the time has come to stand up and advocate for our clients and our profession. If we do not do it now for ourselves, we will be de-professionalised into extinction. (Kieran O'Donoghue, Newsfeed Blog 27 March 2001)

Tangata whenua practitioner voices
Parallel to the professionalisation project was the growing volume of tangata whenua voices against the impact of colonisation and racism in practice and the profession. Participants spoke about the NZASW history and the decades following when the NGO social services sector rapidly increased including the growth of Iwi social services and services by Māori for Māori. They reflected how mainstream organisations in both the NGO and the State sectors began developing bicultural frameworks of practice referencing the Treaty of Waitangi as a baseline for services. There were concerns that the social work workforce did not match the ethnic mix of New Zealand, particularly the communities of need, and the predominance of Māori as clients in health, justice, and child protection services. The concept of registration of social workers to embed bicultural practice as determined by Māori was re-introduced by tangata whenua leaders in the profession while remembering the historical journey and hard-won battles.

Discussion
It is argued that, despite the social work professionalisation project in Aotearoa New Zealand occurring during major neoliberal economic revisions, the project progressed due to the alignment of multiple factors (Hunt, 2017). The grassroots narrative of social work was increasingly disrupted through the decades through efforts by the multiple stakeholders to ensure consistent and good ORIGINAL ARTICLE VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 1 • 2020 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK enough practice and to protect the public from poor practice. The irony of the development's timing was not lost on the participants.
…it came about at almost the same time as consumers were challenging the label of expert. So many social workers were heavily involved in the women's health movements, land marches, nuclear free NZ, promoting partnership and selfdetermination, social justice, we were quite radical community development grass-roots workers and at the same time the State lost its faith in professions and needed to challenge social workers. (Sonya Hunt, May 3, 2016) However, the risk that a State regulator tightens rules, controls and definitions of social work, which ultimately undermine the social justice mandate of the profession is clear. Grassroots pathways into the profession are now restricted with the current requirement of a minimum four-year degree in social work to meet the qualification benchmark (Hunt et al., 2019) and the application of 'fit and proper considerations' for registered social workers (SWRB, 2018). There remains a sense of unease: I've had a somewhat conflicted view of looking at registration, mainly because I think it has the potential to constrain innovation, and so that has always be a tension for me around the introduction of registration and who does it best suit, and

Conclusions
These personal accounts of the social work professionalisation journey illuminate the contested views and enduring struggles between stakeholders. Social workers challenged themselves to put their own house in order, demonstrating endurance and resilience as a maturing professional group. They sought to make central the views of those groups within the profession and who they served that had been marginalised, a basic of grassroots practice. Professionalisation was expected to improve services and ensure better outcomes. The SWRA (2003) provided for voluntary registration, a unique response to regulation and reflecting the State's ambivalence within a neoliberal political environment. However, following several reviews of the legislation, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act (2019) was passed making it mandatory for all practising social workers to register by 2021.
It is important to reflect on the various agendas behind professionalisation and regulation, as well as the impacts, both intended and unintended. The ongoing development of frameworks that assert the rights of groups that may be readily marginalised including indigenous service users and practitioners, is fundamental to ensuring that difference is kept on the agenda and grassroots priorities, while disrupted, are not forgotten.