When are we not a Social Worker?

Over many years I have been working on what it means to be a social worker. This blog originally began over 10 years ago as I was endeavouring to solve that particular question. It is now being over 20 years since I graduated from University I can remember at the time being excited about my new profession and what it meant to me personally and professionally. I remember I wanted to learn as much as I could, I want to know how effective I can be as a social worker. I began with an ideal, the belief that I needed to work on two particular constructs, they being nonjudgemental and value free. It didn't take me long to realise that it was not possible to be either of those, but it was possible to understand where our judgements interfered with the work that we do and to realise that I had no idea as to what my values were.

There have always been ethical issues in relation to the work that I do in fact, it is fair to say that there are many ethical issues which occur sometimes on a daily basis. This can be determined by the way, we thank about a client based on how the addressed their weight their employment nonemployment and even the type of car they may drive. The thoughts I entertained in relation to any of these ideas were judgements I was making about these people and in some cases would affect the way I chose to work with them.

For many years I worked for an Employment Assistance Provider (EAP) where most of my clients were middle-class, they on the whole appeared to have relationship problems and on occasions were finding life hard. I don't think there was ever an occasion where I simply chose not to work with them or I dismissed the particular issues, but I did find them tiring and mundane and wondered why they were using a service which was provided to them by their employer and not paying for it themselves when they could afford to do so.

I've never been concerned about the quality of my work, particularly in the latter years after I'd been able to develop my own form of therapeutic practice. I had become more confident as the years progressed in the way I thought about my practice. I can remember when I first began counselling how difficult it was to focus on the client and try to remember what is an appropriate question to ask based on what the client is saying. This was often difficult because I wasn't listening to the client. I was too busy focusing on the next question. I soon learnt that if I relaxed and knew that the question would just come to me I would find the process more helpful for the client. This proved to be the case and it certainly dispensed with the anxiety which came from having to worry about what question to ask.

The question that has remained with me over the years. Once I have been able to sort out who I was as a therapeutic counsellor relates to who I was and have been as a social work. I have often thought that by doing one I was automatically doing the other. I am very good at asking questions, delving into the depths of a person's experiences, but is that enough if we want to be a good social worker? I have a certain skill set, tools if you like, which I can inject into the session and help the client come to realisations which are new and challenging. But again, does that make me a good social worker? These are tools that anyone can acquire regardless of the training and can appear to be significant and unique to a particular profession, but they are still tools. Anyone, using these tools could be a counsellor, but does that make them a social worker?

The question that concerns me is when are we not a social worker? If I am a mechanic I am a mechanic as long as I'm fixing something mechanical. As a mechanic I go home, I speak to my partner, I play with the kids. I'm not necessarily a mechanic while at home, unless I am fixing something. So am I a social worker when I am in front of the client and something else when I am at home? So as a social worker someone who just has a set of tools and uses them for the purpose of interpersonal discovery? If a mechanic makes a mistake while fixing a customer's car who holds him responsible for that mistake? If the mistake is fatal, the customer can hold the mechanic accountable for the damage caused by his or her mistake. Each of us then are obligated to ensure that all our work leaves the customer or client safe.


Social work is a value laden profession, unlike any other profession. There are a set of values which inherently determine how a social worker should conduct his or her practice. The question that this tends to create is kind of like the question I posed earlier which is when are we not "practising"? Speaking from a position of personal knowledge, I know that in is possible to be dragged before the social work ethics committee based on a private text message. Putting this personal experience aside, I have always believed that our behaviour, under all circumstances, should reflect who we are professionally. My personal experience validates my long held view.


Who, in the public, are aware of the standards expected of a practising social work? Do people believe that those standards should be enacted at all times and under all circumstances? I am unable to say if I know the answers to any of these questions, what I can do is make assumptions about how people may think social workers should behave. What I hear from clients is probably an indicator as to the standard expected from social workers.

The people I work with want to be heard and understood. That they are not heard and not understood indicates that the social worker is failing to perform a primary function of any social worker, and that is to engage with the client so that a relationship can be established which benefits those involved. Regardless of the type of work that a social worker engages in, this is an integral part of being an effective social work. Failing at this basic level is an indicator that the social worker should not be doing social work or is poorly supervised and hasn't been corrected in relation to client engagement. You will never be an effective social worker if the people you're working with don't like working with you.

There are two important elements in relation to the commitment and aims of social work as defined in the Australian Association of Social Work "Code of Ethics." "Working with and supporting people to achieve the best possible levels of personal and social well-being, working to address and redress inequity and injustice affecting the lives of clients, client groups and socially disadvantaged." p7
It is clear as to what our purpose is and how we should be working with our clients and beyond that how we should be behaving in the general community.

In answer to the question when are we not a social worker, the answer is simple. There is not a time when we should not be practising the principles which inform the work we do. We can't advocate for justice and fairness, when we are not just and fair in our personal lives. It is a contradiction to have one set of values for one aspect of our lives and another set of principles in other parts of our lives. Being a social worker is just about "being".

The Minor Importance of Minor Parties

It has been an interesting period over the past couple of months as we the Child Protection Party have embarked on a campaign to have two members elected to the Legislative Council. The battle for recognition and media coverage has been a struggle. We understand that the Legislative Council primarily, and minor parties, battle for a small space in the political landscape. We have come to understand that minor parties have a restricted and sometimes muted voice when it comes to the electoral process.

It is unfortunate that major parties dominate this space, yet it is an important space, where minor parties need to have a voice. It is sad to contemplate that a minor party may win the 10^th and 11^th seat in the Legislative Council and by doing so will eliminate the voice of another minor party.

During this electoral cycle it has been painful watching the performance of Nick Xenophon as he marches from one media event to another. As an observer of Mr Xenophon for many years and someone who has worked with him as a breakeven gambling counsellor, it is fascinating how he is able to gather media attention to the detriment of parties such as ours and other minor parties.

We all have a voice and that voice needs to be heard. A democracy should not be based on the party or the ideology which is dominant at the time. It should also be based on hearing the voices of those who have significant issues, whether they be singular or multilayered. The Child Protection Party, as do the Dignity Party and other minor parties, represent many of the people who would normally vote for any of the major political parties. It is in the Legislative Council that these people have an opportunity to have their view represented by voting specifically for issues that are specific and relevant to their lives. It is disappointing that those views are not represented via the media.

While energy, unemployment and State development are also important, so are the singular issues raised by all minor parties. The Dignity Party focus on issues which impact thousands of people in this state, and they have a wonderful representative in Kelly Vincent. To my previous point, it would be disappointing to lose someone of her calibre, intelligence and advocacy. We understand that we are pitted against her in a fight for a seat in the Legislative Council, however, we need to acknowledge the important role she and other minor parties play in this state election.

Never before has any party specifically focused on the well-being of children. Until Ms Vincent was elected, no political party had focused on the disabled and the issues they bring to the table. What we represent and what that of the Dignity Party represent are a significant group of voters and in our case, non-voters who need to be represented at the highest possible level. Primarily because major parties do not focus on these two groups of people. Children and the disabled are ignored and should be acknowledged and advocated for by all parties, but regretfully this does not happen. Hence the need for minor parties to take the banner, and fight for these people.

The fight though is difficult and long. It doesn’t end at the voting but continues for as long as we have people who are prepared to continue the fight. Elections come and go and there will always be minor parties who have significant issues which need to be heard. We need their voice, we need their advocacy, we need their passion. It is time that all minor parties joined together as a coalition to advocate with a louder voice and with authority.

It was somewhat disheartening to have the minor parties contact us at the time preferences were being discussed. Self-interest dominated, and anger prevailed. The Child Protection Party takes full responsibility for failing to contact the minor parties prior to nominating preferences. It is evident that some of the minor parties share the same ideology and have similar policies. We could have joined together and discussed those similarities and how we could gain attention from the media. It is my observation that we tend to live in the same bubble, dominated by our own internal issues and our own struggles in getting the message that we think is important to the voters.

The question we need to be asking ourselves is, “do we have significant power and influence as an elected parliamentarian?” The Child Protection Party believes that the sole reason while we are nominating for the Legislative Council is because we can influence decisions on the issues which are important to us and the community. We will filter all legislation that passes through the upper house in light of the impact that legislation will have on children. We have an opportunity to represent all children by ensuring that they have better outcomes than they would if we were not there.

The Authority to Create Change

It is vital that at the next state election that we, the Child Protection Party, have the balance of power in the legislative Council.

History will tell us that neither party have a policy which focus specifically on improving the outcomes for children. The power and influence we require comes when we are having to negotiate legislation with the major parties and with the government in particular. Every policy, every legislation which is presented to be passed in the upper house, before it becomes law, will be vetted for the impact that it has on children and their families. When there is legislation which fails the child protection party's "better outcomes" test, then it will not be voted for, and it will not become law.

We need this level of power so that we can make the changes which are going to impact the most vulnerable people in our community. We understand that the primary battle is always held in the house of assembly, because it is from there that the government is formed. It is important for all voters to make a decision about who they wish to govern based on what they believe the government will offer them. Governments in the past have relegated issues around children, and child protection. in particular, to the too hard basket.

The Child Protection Party is aware that we have a small following which at this point, would not be enough for us to win a seat in the upper house. We are aware, that if the general public were aware of what we had to offer, who we are as individuals, what policies we would put in place and how we would make sure that the government is transparent regarding all issues concerning children, then a place in the Upper House would be assured.

Most people don't understand the workings of government generally let alone that of the legislative Council. It is not our role to educate voters about the Parliamentary system. It is our role to convince people that when they do vote, they have a choice in the Upper House which will determine whether children are considered when legislation has to be passed.

The Child Protection Party will be able to voice people's concerns, to name those people who are damaging children and to create a dialogue regarding programs which would vastly improve the child protection system and the well-being of all children.

We will be in a position to ask questions, to demand that the government is transparent, to seek changes in a system which is universally acknowledged as dysfunctional. As a political movement, we will have the support of the majority of those in the community.

By electing two members to the legislative Council, w'e will be provided with the authority to ask questions from those who implement government policies. We will be relentless when it comes to seeking justice for those who have been betrayed by a system which ignores the most vulnerable people in our community.

Even though little is known of us at this particular time we will become increasingly significant as we develop the power and authority to question the decisions of others.

If it happened to me

As a Social Worker working in private practice with a client group who have had their children removed, I notice the struggles parents experience knowing that the State has stepped in and taken their children from them because the parents are "bad" parents.

I was reflecting recently on what that would be like for me, if the Department of Child Protection had entered my life when and removed my children. There was time when my partner and I would have ticked a few boxes which would have been of concern to the Department if we had come under their gaze. I recall a time when my son was eleven months old and walking, climbing and doing what kids of his age do. He had climbed onto a table in the back yard and fell off and landed on his forehead. It created the biggest bump on his forehead that you could imagine. It was a major concern to us but after a little comforting and holding he was fine. We monitored him for sometime and concluded that he was fine.

Risk factor one

If we had taken him to hospital a doctor or nurse may have assumed that the injury was non-accidentally, or that we were not supervising him appropriately. This could have led to a notification to the Department of Child Protection. Because the report came from a nurse or doctor this would have been acted upon immediately.

Risk factor two

Both my wife and I were unemployed. We were barely able to buy food. It was a horrible time and very testing on our relationship. It is likely that the Department would have seen our financial situation also as one which would put our son at risk.

Risk factor three

My wife was in foster care from three to eighteen. As strange as it may seem, I have cited this as being a concern on many Department documents.

Risk factor four

If the Department social workers had landed at our door and wanted to interview us I would have told them in not uncertain terms to mind their own business and I would not have let them in. They would have returned with the police and because I wasn't co-operating would have seen this as a risk factor and would have removed my son.

Risk factor five

My wife and I would have been extremely distressed, and I, back then, would have become somewhat aggressive, mainly because I wouldn't have understood what was going on and certainly didn't see myself and partner as "bad parents". I would have been labelled as aggressive and that my partner was living with an aggressive man and she needed to be removed from the situation. If she had declared that I wasn't abusive of her the Department Social Workers would have declared that she was failing to accept the DV relationship and the damage it was doing to my son.

Even though none of the above happened, under different circumstances it could have happened to me, and it does happen to others.

The labeling and categorizing of clients is endemic within the Department of Child Protection. Young Social Workers, with virtually no experience are making decisions about clients and their children which impact families for the rest of their lives. While they believe that they are saving children from these terrible parents they often fail to understand the impact of removing a child and the long term damage it may cause.

No parent parents perfectly, we all make mistakes, and I admit that I have made my fair share. There are times when we need help. The Department of Child Protection should be the place to go when help is needed. So many clients have asked for this help only to have their children removed until the children are eighteen years old.

Ask yourself how would you respond if the Department of Child Protection knocked on your door and removed your children? At the current rate of removal it is becoming more likely than ever before.

The Abuse of Power

It has been some concern of mine, for some time, that social workers within the child protection system abuse their power and authority. I emphasise, that this is not always the case, but on many occasions I experience social workers using their authority as a weapon against vulnerable clients.

Recently I attended a meeting between the Department of Child Protection and a client and her workers. The issue which needed to be discussed was the clients drug use. There is no doubt that this was a matter which needed to be raised and had to be confronted by all of us, including the client. Rather than accepting that the client had made a mistake, the mistake needed to be addressed, and then a pathway to move on needed to be discovered.

It was apparent that the client felt embarrassed and humiliated by a poor decision that she had made. Rather than accepting where the client was at that particular time and understanding how she felt it seemed more important for the social workers to hammer home the point that she was a serial drug user. We need to understand that if a client has a long term drug addiction that the expectation that they will not ever have a moment where they are enticed back into their old habits is unrealistic. In the area of child protection we understand that a drug addiction hinders a parent's ability to be able to parent appropriately. There is no denying that it is important for parents to address these concerns, but to expect a person who has a long-term addiction to not return to that addiction in the short term places undue pressure upon the client and adds to their duress.

This doesn't mean that we offer excuses for returning to the addiction, but what it does mean is that we understand the struggle required in order to manage the anxiety and stress, which is caused when someone is attempting to refrain from their drug use. When a client has ticked all the boxes, demonstrated that they have the parenting capacity required to look after, care for, and nurture their child and then revisiting of their drug addiction becomes paramount, it discounts all of the work they have done in order to demonstrate to the department that they have the capabilities required in order to become the parents they need to be. I am not advocating that maintaining a drug habit is acceptable, because it isn't, and it needs to be dealt with before a child can be returned to its parent.

During this meeting the client became angry when she was told that her drug was long-term and that she hadn't been compliant at any stage of the process. This accusation is blatantly untrue and the client knew this. For a social worker to make a claim which is without specific evidence and which minimises all the positive work that the client has achieved, demonstrates poor social work practice. I was feeling angry and frustrated as well so it is no wonder that the client felt angry and demonstrated her anger by swearing and raising her voice.

Rather than accepting where the client was, acknowledging her anger and the reasons why she may be feeling angry, the social worker chose to continue the abuse, by telling the clients that if she continued to swear then she would terminate the meeting.

So how did this end for the client? She left the meeting still feeling angry. Her faith in the system further diminished. Her trust of the workers was completely eradicated. Her sense of self was destroyed. None of this improved the situation, but instead it sends the client to a place she has been avoiding for a long time.

I accept that the hardest thing for any social worker to do is to confront somebody about a behaviour which we believe is unhelpful and damaging to others. However, a good practising social worker will be able to express their concerns in an empathetic and effective manner which doesn't damage the client or interferes with the process. Each client is different and needs to be treated differently. We need to understand the nuances, what triggers those issues which are of particular concern to the client. We should never act in a way which damages or harms the clients sense of self and well-being. It is simply our duty to do no harm. It is frustrating when I notice these simple tenants of social work practice not being adhered to nor being understood.

I'm talking about one incident that happened a couple of weeks ago, but my observation is that this happens far too often. My belief is that the reason why some social workers wish to blame clients is that the social workers believe that the client is a "bad parent". No matter what the client chooses to do is not going to change that perception. When we believe fervently that bad behaviour is the sum total of who the person is we are never going to notice the good behaviour. What saddens me is that there is so much good behaviour that the failure to acknowledge it denigrates and humiliates the very people that we should be supporting.

Forming a political party that matters

For over two years now we have been developing a political movement designed to provide a voice for children and adults who have been in contact with child protection services. The challenge has always been to articulate the need for a change within child protection services so that children and their parents have a voice.

The reason why a political party is necessary is born of the idea that change will not eventuate through advocacy alone. The child protection party, threw myself and Nadia, have been working with parents for over 10 years. Even though the work we do has impacted and provided positive outcomes for parents it has failed to make the changes within the child protection systems that are necessary. We need to think of this problem in terms of two silos, one represents the micro level where we work with parents and the department social workers in order to represent the parents in an environment where they are rarely heard. The other important silo is the one in which decisions are made and one in which we do not, at this particular point, have a voice. This silo is the legislative arm of the government, the decision-makers, those with the power to make the changes that will impact the child protection system in the long-term.

We work on the outside of the system. We are observers, we are notetakers, we are the micro change makers. When we look into the system as an outside observer we notice the inefficiencies, the poor practices, the impact on parents and children, the damaged caused and the poor outcomes for all concerned.

We are aware that there are two diametrically opposed views, the one which sees most parents as "bad parents" and which focuses on a deficit model, and the one which we see and implement which is looking for hope and change within the people with whom we work. We see a system which is reluctant to change, a system which is so entrenched in managing risk that it fails to see the opportunities existing within most parents.

In most of my blogs I have talked about the system, about parents and children, so I won't continue that rant here. What I need to say is that it is through political power and influence that significant change can take place. In recent times I've come to realise that there will be many people who will be seeking to cash in on this issue because they realise that it is becoming politically expedient to occupy the child protection space. In my mind, there is only one political party which has the knowledge, the background, the experience, and the policies to make the changes that are necessary.

It has been proven that none of the major political parties have the will, the understanding, nor the policies to change the system that needs to be changed. If they had all of this they would have been able to change the system a long time ago. Each time there is a crisis within the system, that is a child either dies while in care or because the child wasn't taken into care, nothing changes in order to improve or prevent these sorts of outcomes. As a community we can no longer allow the flagrant disregard for the well-being of children to persist. As a community we have to take active steps to change the system so that all children, regardless of socio-economic background, the way they were parented, or the way they have been treated while in care, are safe and secure.

It is stating the obvious to say that kids are our future, that unless we look after them, care for them, ensure that they are safe, we are doing a great disservice to them and to the way this country will develop over the decades to come. Each of us has a responsibility to work towards a better future for all children, not just those who are in the child protection system. This includes children with a range of challenges, such as learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and physical disabilities. We need to ensure that regardless of the school one attends or the educational standard attained by a parent, a child has the right to experience the best educational opportunities available.

It is vital that we as a political party and as a community confront social issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol use, and neglect, so that children who find themselves in those environments have the opportunity to feel safe and secure. This can be achieved by providing services which identify the groups mentioned above which will help them to understand the damage done by being in a violent and abusive relationship, by taking drugs and alcohol and how that creates a neglectful environment for the children.

I have stated many times that parents, almost without exception, love their children. Most parents that we encounter want to make the changes that they need to make in order to have their children remain within the family. We need to provide the opportunity for these parents to confront the issues which sit in their lives so they can become better parents. Blaming them, denigrating them and offering minimal services for them to confront and change those issues which inhibit their parenting is not what a cohesive and caring community would want.

The Child Protection Party advocates for these changes. We need to work within the political silo to make the changes that are necessary. We need your support in order to do that.

Poverty and the impact on Children.

Poverty is the singular cause of dysfunction in families. To extinguish poverty as we know it would mean a significant and vital change to the social conscience and the development of political policies. We acknowledge that poverty does not stand alone as the only cause of family dysfunction. We also acknowledge that family dysfunction is not the sole domain of the poor. However, our starting point is the light which is shone on those who are the most vulnerable because of there reliance on social funding.

As a Political Party, we are concerned about the unfair and inequitable distribution of wealth and the glare of those who have access to the resources not afforded most people in this country. It is important that we provide a focus in this area so that the problem may be addressed and appropriate solutions be discovered.

Domestic Violence, drug abuse, child abuse and neglect etc are not mutually exclusive and need to be viewed with a wide perspective incorporating all the nuances which encapsulate these issues.  Poverty sits there along side all the sins of human kind. It is used as a means of control by determining the amount of financial contribution made by governments which will assuage those in power who wish to see others as different and inferior to themselves. To confront those who wield this power means that their own greed and prejudices need to be confronted. They will argue they do what is possible by their narrow definition as controllers of the purse. While offering incentives for the wealthy to become wealthy they are simultaneously offering the poor less and placing controls on them which they would never place on the wealthy.

The bargaining chips offered by those with wealth and power is inordinately effective compared to the apparent limited bargaining chips offered by those who say they represent the poor or the poor themselves. The poor don’t form lobbying groups, stand for parliament or exert any real energy that will change the way they are treated. While the wealthy will influence the political class to ensure that their interests are best served. The political parties who receive donations from the wealthy will always have their donor’s interests at heart. This will determine the political decisions made at the expense of the those who don’t have a voice.

As a political movement, it is therefore imperative that we work to limit the power of the wealthy so that the space which is meant for political debate can be utilised to discuss those who are impacted and suffer at the hands of financially motivated policies which provide nothing but closer surveillance of the poor.   

Policies which limit the distribution of wealth impact the children of the poor. These policies subjugate children through financial suppression and continual denigration based on the parents perceived worthlessness and contribution to society. Someone must make a stand for those who are not able to voice their concerns nor articulate their experiences in a manner which changes the debate and opens a pathway towards true equitable and fair decisions which include the ALL.

Poverty is not a stage of growth, something we have to experience in order for our lives to be different, rather it is an unfortunate pathway determined by the degree to which we as a society castigate those who are lumbered with poverty. In the same way that we would reach down to help someone who has fallen over, we need to reach down and help those who are struggling with life no matter what the affliction.

This is not about becoming extremely paternalistic or superior it is about identifying the structures which bring about poverty and the beliefs which trap people into believing that there is no escape.

The Child Protection Party believes that we can challenge the beliefs which cause children to grow into the beliefs adopted by their parents and imposed by the society in which they live.