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 19th 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 i

discount indigenous voices at your peril-lost voice 5 august

Documents

accountability social

maori social workers

women social workers

social work profession

lost voices

social justice tradition

submitters voices

te tiriti o waitangi