Estimates Debate — Children

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister about this year’s Estimates. Time and time again, the Minister states that child safety is a priority for her. Why, then, when her chief executive states that there is not enough money to meet the needs that we see every day—there just isn’t—did she not seek to be excluded from the 6.5 percent savings exercise required by the Minister of Finance?

That is my over-arching question for these Estimates as we ask further questions around the specifics that make up that 6.5 percent savings cut. My question to the Minister is: why, when her CEO acknowledged that there is not enough money to meet the current needs of the children—there just isn’t—did she not go back as their advocate to the Minister of Finance and ask the Minister of Finance to be excluded from the 6.5 percent savings exercise?

Further to that, I want to ask: can the Minister explain why people should trust her to make the best decisions for our children and whānau when her Budget 2024 decisions have led to cuts to key staff at Oranga Tamariki, cuts to prevention, cuts to early support and transition services in communities, and funding boot camps that have been proven not to work?

I also want to start off by traversing the issue around the restructure. The Minister said at our Estimates select committee that this is a 9 percent reduction in the back office, which I believe is not in fact correct. My question to the Minister is: in the final restructured decisions, what percentage of the back office have been cut as a result of the restructuring proposals?

Then I want to ask the question, what total amount of savings has been made through the Oranga Tamariki restructure and how much of that restructure contributed to the 6.5 percent savings reduction target as prescribed by the Minister of Finance? That is a number of questions to start with. I’m keen to hear the Minister’s response.

Kia ora. I note that in the Vote Oranga Tamariki (OT) budget on page 158, it states “Addressing Serious Youth Offending” funding of $7.342 million.

Now, when reading the Vote Oranga Tamariki Budget documents for this year, we do need to read them alongside the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care final report. One of the quotes in that is: “There is no evidence that young people had any form of assessment for disability or neurodiversity prior to being placed at Whakapakari” boot camp. Further, on page 26, finding No. 53 states: “The incidence of young people with neurodiversity entering the youth justice system is recognised to be high, with as many as 40 percent believed to have an intellectual disability and 60 to 70 percent meeting the criteria for Conduct Disorder.” Further, in a Cabinet paper titled CAB-24-MIN 0209 that went to Cabinet on 10 June, there was no mention of—or explicit mention of—the effects of disabled tamariki in the 21 pages.

My question to the Minister is: given the findings of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care—particularly in Te Whakapakari chapter, which highlights the lack of assessments for disability or neurodiversity among young people at Whakapakari and the high incidence of neurodiversity within the youth justice system—how does the Minister justify the allocation of $7.342 million for addressing serious youth offending in the Vote OT budget without addressing these critical issues? Furthermore, what consultation has the Minister conducted to understand the disproportionate effect of these boot camps that will have on children with disabilities?

Further to that, I note that in the Vote OT Budget document, page 136, it outlines a reduction in the contracting services costs of $120 million over four years—that’s $30 million per annum. This has already been well canvassed in this House; however, I am interested in the breakdown, which notes the $18 million per annum will be cut from “Prevention and Early Support” contracting services.

When reading this Vote, like I said, we need to be looking at the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care final report, and I want to draw attention of the House to Recommendation 121: “The government should support and adequately invest in: a. programmes for children [and] young people and adults who are in care”—and this is the part that I really want to stress, Mr Chair—“or are at risk of being placed in care that are delivered through community organisations”.

Can the Minister please outline how the proposed reduction of $18 million per annum in contracting services focused on prevention and early support will align with the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care, particularly Recommendation 121, which emphasises the need for adequate investment into programmes for those in or at risk of being placed in care; and how this reduction will affect Oranga Tamariki’s ability to fulfil its purpose as outlined in the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, section 4(1)(b)(i), which focuses on prevention?

The Budget also notes that investing in children and young people was $1.499 billion in 2024-25 compared to $1.546 billion in 2023-24—that is a $47 million decrease. The decrease in appropriation is due to reduction in contracting service costs funding decrease of $30 million. Can the Minister explain to the House what direction she will provide her ministry regarding contracting services in the 2024-25 Budget when organisations are achieving 96 percent key performance indicators (KPIs) and still being cut funding? I’m talking about Kia Puāwai family functional therapy, which had a 96 percent KPI—

The member’s time has expired.

Bear with me—first time doing this. Just let me address one of the points from Willow-Jean, around the 6.5 savings exemption. I think it’s really important that, whilst we have more money given back to us than we returned, it’s a good exercise to go through to make sure that we are spending our money wisely and that the money is actually going where it needs to for children in care.

The total overall savings for the restructure for Oranga Tamariki was $200 million overall, for savings from reducing from the back office, and only the back office, and that was over four years. There was also a $200 million reduction—a 20 percent reduction—in travel for staff within Oranga Tamariki, by using better use of technology. But, ultimately, Oranga Tamariki received $33.3 million more than it returned to the Government through Budget 2024.

I think that also addresses the question from the Green member around the $120 million baseline savings. Ultimately, we received $33.3 million more than we returned to Government through Budget 2024. The accountant processes—yes, it went back, but we got returned more than we gave back.

My questions are in relation to the role that the Minister played with determining what would be cut in terms of funding and for what, and what wouldn’t.

Referring back to the actual hearing, the Minister, when questioned, said that she had no role to play in making those determinations because they were operational decisions. At that point, I said that as a Minister, and having been in this position, I would have been given advice on what the options were for cuts, and at that point, the Minister said that, yes, there was some direction and that she felt that the cuts were being made to back-office programmes. However, generally, a Minister will be given at least categories in relation to what would be cut.

Now, what we saw was that Family Start Nelson, the Porirua Whānau Centre, Northcote Women’s Centre—there have been counselling services, there have been prevention services, there’s been 24-hour parenting care that’s been cut across the country. I want to know from the Minister whether or not these names of organisations or the contracts for which they were contracted to provide services for were ever put in front of her, and whether she was given options in terms of choosing who would and would not continue to be funded, because there are huge implications for the young people that no longer have access to the services, and for those communities, some of which have lost access to all of what was available with things like counselling services.

Also, in the same vein, we asked the Minister and the CEO when we could expect to be informed of the contracting arrangements—which social services would continue to get full funding, which social services would lose funding, and whether or not there would be social services that got additional funding—and we were told that that information would be released publicly once those decisions and determinations were made. Now, the expectation was that that would be on 1 July. However, we are now nearly in September, and we have not seen a full list of organisations that are continuing to be funded by Oranga Tamariki and the Government, or that have lost full funding or partial funding, and we have not seen the list of organisations that may have got additional funding, because the Minister has tried to say in this House that that funding wouldn’t go back to the core, but would be shifted to other services.

So when will we get that full list from the Minister that, rightfully, should have been released on 1 July for public transparency’s sake and also for the sector to understand what has occurred here, and yet we still haven’t received it?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do just want to say that the Minister did not answer my question about what percentage of the back office was cut in the restructuring. I would like to know what that number is, because at the Estimates hearing, she said that it was 9 percent, but I believe the number is different. If I could please have clarification around what percentage of the back office has been cut as a result of the restructure.

When we look at the Minister’s comments in the select committee, she said that “There will be no financial impact and there’d been no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee.”, yet I have just heard that social workers are now having to do things like drive children across country, which is taking them away from their social work responsibilities. Is this not an impact on the front line?

To add to my colleague’s questions and contribution, in the Estimates—I have the transcript here—the CEO said that “We’re happy to provide that with accuracy at the end of the completion of our contracting round. … At the end of that process, it will be very clear what services we will continue, what services will be enhanced, what services will be varied, and what services will be discontinued.” I echo the question: when will we receive that information, because the select committee has not received that in post-hearing questions?

I have asked written questions and have been told that it’s not in the public interest for that amount of information to be prepared and to be released, yet we were promised that we would receive that information. We need to see that so we can identify what services have been cut, what services have been reduced, and where the reinvestment has, in fact, gone, so that we can provide the scrutiny that our select committee is supposed to provide for these Estimates hearings.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in regard to the 9 percent reduction in staff members, that’s the information I have. The final decisions and outcomes for the organisational restructure were that 594 roles were disestablished, 175 new roles were established—an overall reduction of 419 roles all together—and 1,900 total number of roles in scope of restructuring out of 5,100 staff, or 37 percent. Front-line staff were not in scope for these changes, and the reason that this information has not been finalised or publicised yet is that the exact number is still not yet available. We’re still working through the redeployment process, as some staff have been offered the opportunity, if they have a qualification in the social worker space, to move into that front-line space. Those conversations are still happening, so the exact number is not known yet.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that this is quite a sensitive topic. Just as the Minister for Children was speaking today, I got a message that another women’s centre in my area of Porirua is being potentially closed; I’m going to get a bit more information. As part of that, I am working with that particular centre to transition their clients, who are very vulnerable women and children who have built trust and a relationship of confidence with the centre over a number of years; I am now having to scramble to help other service providers in our area now cover the loss of this particular centre.

What I want to ask the Minister is—because I understand, through both questions and also the response that was given from the Minister of Finance, that contracts can be changed—will she release a list of all the contracts that have been cut back or contracts that have been changed? The Minister doesn’t have to say how much has been cut. Then it makes it easier for local MPs who have electorates, who have services that have now been cut, to know what service providers are still available so that we can divert clients to those other service providers.

The other question that I have is in relation to the 70 percent that these service providers will only be funded, those who have been successful or have been reviewed. Of that 70 percent, how much will the Minister or the ministry be flexible to allow for demand levels that will be increasing as a result of, for example, the example that I’ve just used today, which I’ve only just got in the last hour, around another women’s centre closing in the area of Porirua—how will they be flexible enough that if demand is increasing because of other service providers closing, will they be flexible around that 70 percent, because, do you know what?

I bet those service providers, because of the history of it, will continue to operate at 100 percent, or potentially 120 percent because they’ve had an increase in clients. Will there be flexibility around that 70 percent threshold for these service providers?

Speaking to the contracts and the proposals around contract changes, Oranga Tamariki’s saving plan has been focused on more effective contract management processes, addressing underutilisation, addressing need, and reducing duplication. Also, contracts are still under negotiation and are still under way. Once there is a final list and we have closed off all those negotiations, then there will be the ability to share that information, but right now, we’re still going through that negotiation process.

What I can say is that when it comes to local MPs worried about young people who may need to be transitioned to another service, Oranga Tamariki, as part of the process when working through the contracts and what new contracts look like, will be working alongside these agencies during that to help them with that transition process and make sure that that care is not interrupted for whoever that is.

Hon Member: When are we getting the list?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Once the negotiations are completed—so negotiations and contracts are still under way, just to answer that question. Just to be clear: I cannot announce things that haven’t been completed yet. Once the negotiations are completed, then we will be able to produce a list.

What I can say is that 50 services, with 35 providers, ended naturally, as intended, on 30 June 2024. The contract funding for those ones were one-off and they match what we’ve done in the past when we have contracts ending naturally. The proposal is that 269 services, with 142 providers, are being reduced to align with service levels based around forecasted utilisation and need; 337 services, with 190 providers, are being discontinued due to a change in prioritised need, underperformance, or underutilisation in previous years; and 1,470 services’, with 451 providers, contracts are already completed with no change or they’re being re-contracted with the same level of service from the 2025 financial year. Now, Oranga Tamariki is in the process of procuring at least another 50 new services going forward, which will align with the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, because that was one of the expectations that I set for the agency.

When we are making decisions and when we are taking a real good stocktake of where we are at, we know that what we have been doing has not been working. We have had reports after reports saying that Oranga Tamariki is failing in their core purpose, and that is in the care and protection of young people. Young people are still at risk of harm in care. Oranga Tamariki were not meeting the national care standards appropriately for our young people year after year after year, and nothing seems to have improved dramatically over the years. It is important that we take a stocktake and we say what we have been doing hasn’t necessarily been working. It might have been holding off the floodgates, but it actually hasn’t made any progress in making our young people safer.

Oranga Tamariki’s purpose is care and protection of our children, and that’s what they need to be getting right. The Independent Children’s Monitor cannot come back year after year and say, “You’re not meeting the needs of the children in your care or the children coming to your attention, and we are not doing anything about the way we’re prioritising the funding in that space.”

Thank you, Mr Chair, and congratulations, Minister, on your undertaking. Thank you so much for speaking to the committee today. Can you extrapolate some of your remarks a little bit further, Minister, in regards to the contracts you’ve just alluded to and the fact that they are being reviewed? What would it look like, in terms of fiscal impacts, Minister, if this approach had been taken earlier, by virtue of the outcomes that so many are interested in today? Can you speak to that, Minister? I certainly think it would illuminate the conversation further, and the committee would further understand the wellbeing that perhaps hadn’t been invested in when it came to young people.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I think it’s really important that a review of contracts is undertaken. Needs change, communities change, and we need to make sure that, actually, what we are funding is fit for purpose for children in the care of Oranga Tamariki, children coming to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, and that we’re making sure we meet their needs.

Since becoming the Minister, that has been my focus. My focus has been on the children and young people that we have been failing so miserably over the years and making sure that, when they do come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, we are responding in time. Are we giving Oranga Tamariki the tools necessary to respond in time when a report of concern comes in; are we making sure that we are vetting caregivers appropriately; are we sighting children when they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki? That needs to be funded, that needs to be funded well, and we need to resource the front line way better when it comes to the care and protection, and that’s part of this service contract review: are these providers providing a service that is making a difference and making our young people that are in Oranga Tamariki care or at the attention of Oranga Tamariki safer?

Are we breaking the cycle of harm in these homes; are we actually getting outcomes for the services, rather than looking at how many people come through the door; are we looking at how they leave; are they any better off; and have we broken that cycle of harm; are those young people safe in the homes they’re in? That is what I am focused on. That is all part of this assessment of these contracts to make sure we are getting value for our young people that are in the care of Oranga Tamariki.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi. It’s good to hear the Minister for Children acknowledge some of the systemic issues that Oranga Tamariki has been confronting. Our questions are really to ask about the things—actually, there are some things that we’re doing, such as section 7AA.

A couple of questions I’d like to start with are: how much of the $10.428 million will be used to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our State care system, as is mentioned in recommendations 14, 16, 39, 55, 63, 117, 126, and 129? Was the extra $1.9 million given to Corrections because the repeal of section 7AA will result in more tamariki Māori entering the prison pipeline? Will there be any cuts to funding for Māori service providers as a result of the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act?

I guess on this line of questioning, it would be good to understand specifically how many Māori services providers will be impacted by the $30 million cut to Oranga Tamariki contracting services. I’d actually like to put this one in as well, if it pleases the Minister: is it appropriate to allocate $29 million to the serious youth offender and boot camps initiatives, given that the core features of boot camps—strong discipline in a military-style environment—have repeatedly proven to be ineffective to reducing—and, in some cases, increase—reoffending rates?

I just want to go back to some issues that were raised by the Greens around how there was a lack of training and awareness in boot camps back from the abuse in care inquiry. I absolutely agree. That was absolutely horrific what happened in that boot camp. They had staff that were not trained to look over those young people. They were on an island where they had no access to actually request help or to even say that they were being hurt and harmed. There were also weapons on this island where those young people were threatened and were absolutely scared to death. That should never have happened. I absolutely agree that there was no consideration taken to those young people with their needs when it came to disability or any behavioural components that should have been looked at.

What I would like to say is comparing that to the military-style academy that we have started the pilot on is not a fair comparison. We have staff that have been trained to deal with the issues with these young people. These young people are assessed before they even start the pilot programme to recognise if there are any disabilities, neurodiversity issues, learning issues—anything that we feel may make the process not OK for them. This is the reason why there is no plan in place at the moment for how to deal with that, because there has been a carve-out to make sure that somebody with a disability who may not have been able to participate in the programme fully is not being placed into an environment where we’re going to cause more hurt and more harm than good.

What I also would add is every young person—the 10 that are currently in the programme have gone through a process. Actually, they are there voluntarily. They have gone through a process with their family, with the courts, with the judge, working through a sentencing plan, through family group conferences, and they are there voluntarily. They can leave this programme, while it’s a pilot, any time that they would like and for any reason, but we are supporting them through this journey because we cannot continue to give up on these young people. We have to give them an alternative to be able to go out into the community with their heads held high in confidence, in knowing what their strengths are and how they can actually become contributing members of society in a space of either learning, working, or even dealing with their families when they go back into their homes.

So there’s a lot of work going on. This is a pilot; it’s constantly evolving. If issues like that do arise, there is the expectation that we will put the right people in front of those young people to make sure that we’re not causing more harm than good.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister in relation to an exchange she’s had with North Shore Women’s Centre—so North Shore Women’s Centre wrote to her last month and explained that the cut to their contract for Oranga Tamariki services would mean, for them, the loss of two front-line social worker jobs—that cut would mean that. It would mean that for an organisation that has working in the community for 38 years, they will, effectively, close in April of next year without that funding now being in place.

When the Minister responded to that plea that they will close, on 8 August, she stated to them that she’s been assured that there will be no impact on front-line roles, such as social workers, in response to that statement. Secondly, she stated that she is confident that decisions will result in a better level of service delivery and outcomes. I would just like to understand why the Minister wrote that to a group that services 486 wāhine and 460 tamariki in the North Shore. How will they be provided with a better standard of service, as specified by the Minister, if they close in April of next year?

Further to that point, I would also like to understand—because this is the very question that the Children’s Commissioner is inquiring into, as to what her responsibilities are under the Oranga Tamariki legislation—when is the Minister, in fact, going to provide the information that is being requested by the Children’s Commissioner?

In regards to North Shore Women’s Centre, North Shore Women’s Centre were contracted for multiple services. I think it’s around six or seven services that they were contracted for. They were contracted for around $596,000—two services have been discontinued, so they are still being funded for those other services. The rationale for the funding decisions around that was because they did not align with core business for Oranga Tamariki, which is to prioritise children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki or are in the care of Oranga Tamariki.

Those were services to provide counselling for women, which is a valid service. But there are many services on the North Shore that provide counselling for women, and we need to make sure that we are actually putting that money towards our core purpose, which is children—children in the care of Oranga Tamariki.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Their mums matter too.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yep, but there are plenty of services that provide women’s counselling, and it is a duplication of service that can be provided somewhere else, when that money could be used towards our children.

I just want to revisit something that the Minister said earlier about what was working and what wasn’t. On a number of occasions in this House, the Minister has said that the previous Government’s work and attempts to address youth crime and youth offending were not working. However, at the hearing, it was very good, actually, when I referred to Kotahi te Whakaaro and Circuit Breaker and Oranga Tamariki’s role in that, that the Minister said, “We’re actually extending that programme that you’re talking about—I called it fast track, but it’s exactly what you’re talking about—because it has shown good results, and that across the table, around the table, multi-agency approach really works well because we can get what the kid needs in front of them a lot quicker by not siloing ourselves as agencies. So, yes, that will continue. It will also be extended to older children. So we will go from 14 to 17 as well, where appropriate, because, yep, if it works, we will use it.” You also said, “This is not something that we should politicise and just stop a programme because it was run by the previous Government. It was showing good results and it will continue.” Now, it’s great that you said that, because there have been times when you haven’t said that.

To the Minister: I just want to know why then make the decision to put $27 million into boot camps when all of the evidence shows that that doesn’t work, when for all of the survivors of State care abuse it is triggering because some of them have been in boot camps, even if the Minister thinks that this one takes a different shape and form? Why not put the $27 million into what she could see was already working for young people: wraparound supports, multi-agency approach, supporting not just the young person but their siblings and the entire whānau? Why not put the additional $27 million into doing that?

Also, I’d like to know from the Minister—because, certainly, when we were in Government, we got regular updates of the results and outcomes for the young people that were in the Kotahi te Whakaaro programme. I know she’s changed it to fast track. There were good results in terms of reductions in recidivism and those young people and their whānau having good outcomes. I want to know whether or not the Minister is still receiving that information for what she now calls fast track, and what the latest results are for a programme which she sings the praises of that was started by the previous Government.

Yes, I do believe that—and that is why I say this constantly—since I have been here, my only thought is towards making sure that young people are safe, young people are provided with the care that they need, young people are listened to, and young people actually have the services that they need to be the best that they can be. I don’t politicise that. That is the reason why the fast-track programme will continue and that we are investing more money into that service—because it worked and it worked well. We are also extending the age group up to the age of 16 because that is important too. When you have something that is working, you invest in it. When you have something that is not working, you don’t invest in it, and you make sure that you are reprioritising the money into spaces that work.

In regards to the to the military-style academy, these young people have been sentenced to at least two crimes of 10 years or more, proven in court. These are our most serious repeat youth offenders. Do you know what was happening with them before the military-style academy? Nothing. They sat in a youth justice facility, like a holding pen on the way to prison. That’s how we treated them—we gave up on them. They had no purpose, no goal, no idea what the future was going to hold for them. They left, and they came back. It was like a revolving door where nobody actually gave a damn where they were once they left the youth justice (YJ) facility and nobody gave a damn when they came back to the YJ facility, because, as far as we were concerned, they were a lost cause and we’ll just wait for them to go to prison.

That’s what was happening to these young people before we decided to put a programme together to actually make sure we knew what their needs were, put services in front of them so that they could grow their skills in many places, learn routine, learn how to deal with their family—make sure we’re not sending them back to the same environment that put them in there in the first place, make sure they’re safe when they leave, and make sure we’re supporting them in whatever they want to do when they leave, for at least nine months when they leave.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I would just ask the Minister for Children if she could explain to the committee why she has undertaken a review of service contracts at Oranga Tamariki, and the factors that have been taken into account in the review of those contracts.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The ultimate, main factor is that Oranga Tamariki has not been achieving on what they should in their core purpose; we’ve seen that in report after report after report. I could probably actually repeat a lot of the stuff that was done in reports three years ago, that was done in reports 20 years ago basically word for word where we haven’t improved in the way we’re caring for our young people. We don’t need any more reports. We need to deliver in that space, and the way to deliver in that space is to actually support front-line services, give them the tools they need to do their job, and make sure that we are supporting them in that role, and that hasn’t been done well in the past.

This is previous Governments and Governments before that Government, so I’m not blaming it all on one Government. This has been going on for a very long time. We need to have the courage to make these tough decisions. Whilst people may disagree with these decisions because it financially impacts some people, the trade-off, I’m not willing to not do it. The trade-off is making sure that our children and young people, when they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, are seen in an appropriate time frame, they’re in a safe home once a social worker sights them and makes sure they’re safe, and if they’re not safe, making sure we’re placing them somewhere safe. This is the reason why we have to do the review on the contracts, because we have to re-prioritise our funding and our money to go to the right places for our young people.

Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I couldn’t help but notice the previous Labour member, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, seemed to get a bit more than she bargained for. But, Minister, I visited a youth justice facility with you about a month ago. I noticed that the people there seemed to already know you, and then you told me that you’d been back there just two weeks later to hear from the people some more. I’ve heard you mention visiting quite a number of Oranga Tamariki facilities up and down New Zealand. I wondered if you could share what you’ve seen and experienced about the culture and the operations; what you’ve tried to do, if you’ve tried to change that at all; and how that’s influenced the way that you’ve come to the budgeting process that led to these Estimates.

Thank you, Mr Chair. These are really good questions. When I first came in, part of the money that we had to hand back was actually money that was sitting unspent that had been bid for by the previous Government to provide community provider homes for young people. That came about because of Te Oranga and some issues that happened in Te Oranga. That money wasn’t spent. It was sitting in a bank account unspent while we had youth justice facilities that were lacking in maintenance; that weren’t fit for purpose for our young people. We had to lower the bed numbers in many of these facilities because they were not safe; the infrastructure wasn’t safe. It was a terrible environment.

I’ll tell you what my plan was. I actually went into these facilities, looked at what the issues were, and made sure that we actually delivered in fixing those issues, which we have done and we are still doing. We have to work through each one, one by one, to work out what those issues are. Epuni was an absolute disgrace. That has now been—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Painted?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: —refurbished and actually made fit for purpose. Hell yes, repainted. That place was like a youth justice facility. Those kids did not commit a crime. It is a care and protection unit where those young people deserve to be in an environment where they are not treated like criminals, because they are not criminals—and that is how they had been treated for years and years, and nothing was done. That facility needed a revamp. It has had a revamp, and it is almost completed.

In Auckland, there were two facilities where I knew the moment I walked in that staff were not trained, were not capable to deal with the high needs that these young people had, were not treating them with dignity and respect. I could tell within two seconds that that place was not a place that I would be happy to put any young person.

We have put standard operating practices in place in these youth justice facilities. We have set a standard of, “You are going to get some training”—which they never got before. We have changed management to make sure that training process is done across the board—across multiple youth justice facilities—so that no matter which one they go to, they are treated with dignity and respect, which they weren’t being treated with when I took over.

I’m really interested in understanding the Minister for Children’s definition of getting value for money when it comes to contracting services outlined in the Vote.

I bring this line of questioning up as I have heard from many organisations, including Kia Puāwai Functional Family Therapy, which in 2023 had a 96 percent improved living situation key performance indicator (KPI) in relation to the support to 252 rangatahi in Te Tai Tokerau. Can the Minister explain to the committee what direction she will provide her ministry regarding the contracting services in the 2024-25 Budget if a 96 percent KPI is not considered value for money? How can the Minister responsible for prevention of family and sexual violence justify cutting a critical programme with her Ministry for Children that is designed to prevent harm at its earliest stages?

On page 153 of the Vote, there is a success matrix—on page 153. How do you plan on meeting that despite repealing section 7AA, decreasing the funding to contractors, which include iwi and Māori organisations, by $30 million and, further, not investing any more money into work programmes to support iwi-led care organisations? We want you to be successful in that, Minister.

In light of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care findings, which have absolute relevance to this portfolio and to prevention of family and sexual violence, particularly the issues highlighted on page 57 about the impact of structural racism and the stripping of Māori culture that caused actual harm to children, can you please tell us how you are planning to honour this and to be successful when you are not funding this?

Kia ora. Minister, just one question: if the model that works, that is being reinvested in, is a kaupapa Māori model—and let’s use, for example, the boot camp model in Palmerston North. If mātauranga Māori and Māori culture has been, indeed, used to make that its point of difference, then why aren’t you saying that that’s the model that’s best utilised instead of letting it get branded as being a military versus a Māori cultural solution for Māori rangatahi?

I’d just like to answer that question for the member, and I thank her for that question. Yes, there are iwi-led programmes within the military-style academy programme. There’s also defence-designed programmes within the military-style academy, and whilst there is a higher percentage of Māori within youth justice and a higher percentage of Māori within this programme, it’s not just a programme for Māori children; it’s a programme for all children, and it’s making sure that all young people get the services and the care that they need and making sure that we provide to their needs. That includes te ao Māori, and that’s important to me also. There are iwi-led programmes, but, like I said, there’re other programmes within that as well.

Just one on the boot camps. I asked the Minister at the scrutiny week how much per participant, per child, the boot camp was. The Minister said, “Any details of specific ‘how much it’s going to cost per child’ we’ve got announcements coming up soon in the future and we can’t go into [too] much detail around that”. The announcement came and went, and the detail around that has never come to the surface. How much is the pilot per child, per participant? That is my question on the boot camps.

My other question is: who, and on what date, made the decision that Oranga Tamariki would limit its core focus, its core purpose, its core business to that for children in care and protection or who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki? Because, as I read the legislation, the very services that we are hearing being cut are services that go to the purpose, role, and function of Oranga Tamariki in the legislation. So who decided to refocus Oranga Tamariki to that which we are hearing now from the Minister?

The purpose of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 is all about promoting the wellbeing of children, young persons, their whānau, and communities. This means supporting and protecting children and young people, including preventing them from suffering harm to their development or wellbeing. This purpose also extends to preventing offending or reoffending. The Act also outlines that the wellbeing and best interests of a child or a young person should be paramount in the application of law. At its core, Oranga Tamariki is a statutory care and protection and youth justice agency. Its focus must reflect this core responsibility and purpose, and the operating model helps Oranga Tamariki to better deliver on its core purpose.

What I would like to say is that the care and the wellbeing of our young people is not just up to Oranga Tamariki. This is a multi-agency approach when it comes to our young people that are out in our communities. It tends to be the assumption that Oranga Tamariki is the only agency that is responsible for children—that just is not true. Kāinga Ora has an obligation to make sure that when we have families with young children, that they have a roof over their head and a place to live. Health has an obligation to children to make sure that they are healthy and that they have everything they need within a health system. Mental health has an obligation to children in regards to their mental health and their wellbeing. The Ministry of Social Development has an obligation to children when it comes to funding parents who may need help when it comes to taking care of their young people.

To say that Oranga Tamariki should be the be-all and end-all for every child in this country is absolutely untrue. It’s actually not helpful, because what we need to do is make sure that the all-of-children system works well together when it comes to the care and protection of our children. That is what I am doing: putting the focus back where Oranga Tamariki’s core purpose is, the statutory care and protection of the youth justice agency as well and must focus and must reflect on this core responsibility, because for far too long we’ve had report after report after report saying that children are still being hurt and harmed in care. This is something that people would be kicking and screaming about whenever a child is hurt or harmed in care: how could a child get hurt or harmed in care? Why aren’t we resourcing the front-line staff better? Why aren’t we focusing on the children in care?

That is exactly what I have said from the moment I have come in here: that we are going to focus on the children and young people that are in the care and protection of Oranga Tamariki. This is an all-of-agency approach; it’s not just Oranga Tamariki’s responsibility.

Mr Chair, thank you. Minister, thank you very much for your quite emotive and emotional remarks. Do you want to tease it out, Minister, for this committee? I’m quite frankly sick and tired of the politicisation of what looking after children in New Zealand looks like. Minister, you used “core business”—core business. What does that mean for everyday children, irrespective of race, irrespective of ethnicity? Aren’t we all just Kiwis here? I am fascinated that in a modern country this becomes a political football. It’s certainly becoming a political football on the left. Minister, can you talk about core business and give this committee some assurance that we’re all on the same page when it comes to children and their betterment and welfare?

Thank you, Mr Chair. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of reports of concern that come in regarding people who are concerned about a young person being safe in their environment where they’re living. Usually that comes from another Government organisation, so it will come from education, it will come from police, it’ll come from another Government agency.

Oranga Tamariki’s first core responsibility is to make sure that we are triaging those phone calls and make sure that we are responding in an appropriate time frame to make sure that that young person has been either sighted or we have triaged to know that that young person is safe. We haven’t been doing that well over the last few years. We have not been hitting a target that I think is acceptable. Every time we see that a young person passes away or a baby passes away and there may have been a report of concern about that young baby, the immediate reaction from the public is, “Oh, here we go again. Oranga Tamariki has failed.”

What I would like to say—and I just want to make this perfectly clear: Oranga Tamariki’s job is to step in at the worst moment of a young person’s life and a family’s life, sometimes. That is what they do on a daily basis. They step in at the worst moment of a young person’s life. We can’t afford to get it wrong, because if you’re a young person and you’re reaching out for help and you’re asking the very agency whose core purpose is to protect you to protect you and they don’t, what are the chances of you actually sticking your hand up again and asking for help again? We need to make sure that we are getting that right from the very beginning. That is what I see as the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, making sure our children and our young people are safe.

What I would also say is I know and I see the devastation in the eyes of some social workers when, even when they have done absolutely everything right and they have tried absolutely everything to protect a young person, we can get a bad outcome. That is not the responsibility of Oranga Tamariki. They didn’t hurt or harm that young person. The only person responsible for that hurt or harm is the person who was the perpetrator of that harm. We can do as much as we can in resourcing front line so they have the tools to step in and do what they need, but I want to put it on the table here that those social workers that step up every day for the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, which is the care and protection of our young people, their safety and their wellbeing at the forefront of their decision making, I just want to thank them for all the hard work that they do, because it’s not easy when you are blamed for the hurt and harm that happened before you even arrived.

I move, That the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. It is now time to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.