Tai Timu Tai Pari (TTTP) is offering our feedback on Oranga Tamariki Long-term Insight Briefing (LTIB),  as a vital stakeholder in the Children’s system. We are drawing upon insights from our Tama-Ariki Enabling Communities project, along with insights gained by our shareholder partners, while working with whanau in our communities from Te Hana in the South to Whangaroa in the North.

Outline of This Paper

In Part 1, we summarize the trends, drivers, and scenarios highlighting key insights from the original LTIB, along with the Tai Timu Tari Pari analysis and feedback (noted in italics). Part 2 focuses on the policy options developed by OT, incorporating the Tai Timu Tai Pari response.

Part 1

The LTIB identifies four trends (increasing use of technology, increasing pressure in the children’s workforce, demographic changes, devolution), two drivers (socio-economic disparity and social cohesion) and four scenarios (1. Low social cohesion and high soci-economic disparity 2. Low social and low soci-economic 3. High social and high soci-economic 4. High social and low soci-economic).

Increasing use of technology

The LTIB appears to define technology as use of digital channels, AI and automation and cloud-based services. It appears to see this as advantageous in three broad areas. 

Firstly, to disseminate information about child maltreatment (via social media) and to educate i.e. parenting programmes.

Secondly, to provide telehealth style services and in particular counselling in remote and under-resourced areas. Tai Tokerau would fall into that category.

The third point highlights improved data sharing among children's agencies, schools, healthcare providers, and law enforcement. However, it is poorly defined and while it may be information sharing for the safety and wellbeing of a child under section 66, it should be discussed further. The LTIB also proposes digital platforms and secure data sharing as a means for tracking community services gaps, failings, matching services and visibility at a community level.

The tone highlights cost and delivery efficiencies from an agency/funder perspective. Our concerns are that budget cuts may pressure social workers to opt for online contact instead of in-person visits. While this is seen as a slight improvement over the current lack of regular visits noted in Te Tohu o te Ora (survey of Tamariki and Rangitahi experiences in care), it still raises issues for delivering a better response. 

To better respond it must be at a minimum, a hybrid model, that remains heavily focused on face-to-face, in the spirit of recommendation 39 of the Abuse in Care Inquiry. This recommendation acknowledges that many Tamariki have disabilities and a recommended Care Safety Principles (10. (j)), ask the Children’s system to take leadership so the opportunities for abuse in online and physical environments are minimized. We see this focus as providing opportunities for abuse.

With the Abuse in Care inquiry in mind, we agree with the concerns outlined in the LTIB. It is crucial that issues such as privacy, over-surveillance, biases in algorithms, disinformation, misinformation, and the relational dynamics of social services and child protection are addressed. This is especially important for Māori, who are already 1.25 times or 25% more likely to experience a ROC compared to non-Māori children, even after considering factors like low income, parental history, and previous childhood experiences. This situation reflects both historical and current racism, which poses a significant threat to the future of Tamariki Māori.

The emphasis on leveraging technology to prevent and respond to child maltreatment must not worsen existing inequities. The Digital Equity Coalition Aotearoa (DECA) highlighted in their letter to the Minister of Health that telehealth has limitations in remote areas, with 10% of New Zealand's population digitally excluded and 20% facing access challenges. Vulnerable groups, including low-income individuals, seniors, Māori, Pacific Peoples, and those in isolated regions, encounter the most barriers. Tai Tokerau, with its remote areas and high rates of poverty and disability, is particularly at risk. DECA advocates for addressing these inequities in policy development options and Tai Timu Tai Pari support this.

Increasing pressure on workforce

The LTIB highlighted capacity and capability issues in this trend. Capacity issues are like many professional areas across NZ and globally, they reflect our aging populations, with many kaimahi seeking retirement in the next 5 years. This has and is said to be adding pressure to the remaining workforce who are experiencing burn out and high workloads, and as a result are seeking to leave the profession in the next five years.

Capability issues appear to reflect a lack of early intervention and healing skills and particularly specialised sexual violence services. The LTIB acknowledges the work to address these in the Te Aorerekura Entry to Expert Capability Framework E2E and Specialist Family Violence Organizational Standards.

The LTIB appears to highlight ongoing efforts to meet future skill requirements, particularly concerning the role of Social Workers and responses to adverse situations such as Family Violence and Sexual Violence (FVSV).  

However, this approach does not sufficiently address the comprehensive needs of tamariki, who interact with various professionals from Police, Health, Education, Housing, and the community—all of whom share the responsibility for preventing child maltreatment. Just as we strive to ensure our workers are culturally competent, it is equally important that they are also tamariki competent. They are not merely small adults; they are children at different developmental stages.  

Tai Timu Tai Pari advocates for a framework akin to the Te Aorerekura Entry to Expert Capability Framework, which outlines competency levels from basic to advanced, specifying who should possess these competencies to effectively work with children.

Demographic changes
All the issues outlined in the LTIB are and have been thoroughly discussed, and include diversity, and the growing percentage of children with disabilities.

  Devolution

We view the global trend of the past 50 years, decentralization, as a means for regional development. According to the OECD power and responsibility is given at elected local or subnational level. Devolution is seen as a stronger form of decentralization where power is transferred to lower-level autonomous governments – for example the three devolved nations of Northern Island, Scotland and Wales who have their own national assembly/parliament and their own government.

The LTIB does not describe a transfer of power but a different contracting model where more flexibility in inputs and outputs is allowed but where the Central Government retains the choice and measurement of outcomes. The language used seeks to invite proposals from NGOs or for iwi to present proposals to assume responsibility if a certain criterion is met (not described) and then the Government will accept it and fund it.

In the consultation on the LTIB respondents were asked the extent to which different groups should have responsibility for identifying and supporting children at risk of maltreatment. Local government had the lowest support, while Whanau and Family, Individuals, Parents and Caregivers and Iwi and Hapu had the highest levels of perceived responsibility.

The rationale and commentary surrounding devolution as a viable option are somewhat unclear. It seems to be a reaction to the numerous failures and criticisms directed at the State child protection system, as well as a response to austerity measures and decreased government spending. 

The LTIB indicates that local agencies—still under the purview of Central Government—will take on responsibilities for local services and communities. They also point out that with devolution, and having multiple local agencies involved, coordination and information sharing may become more challenging. This could lead to situations where children are at risk of falling through the cracks if agencies do not collaborate effectively (page 20). However, they fail to recognize that this scenario reflects the current status quo with agency offices in the regions.  Furthermore, the LTIB states, local agencies or communities might lack the financial or human resources necessary to manage and deliver complex services, suggesting that the real issue lies in the cost of child protection rather than identifying the best-suited entities for the task.   

TTTP urges for investment in direct services for children and their families, including specialized health care and trauma support services. Providing these resources early on can help prevent ongoing trauma and reduce the need for interaction with statutory and state services. This approach will foster a child-centered environment that empowers local decision-making.

Social cohesion

Strong social cohesion is a strong protective factor in preventing child maltreatment. The Helen Clark Foundation published a social cohesion report in April 2025 showing decreasing levels of cohesion.

Polarization, as the opposite of cohesion is seen as a cause of instability and is a global trend.  In the Helen Clark Foundation report the more diverse perceptions or fracturing is widest where there is inequality - in that better off people have more positive perceptions; those with political preferences with strong ideological differences of the minor parties; whether you are employed or unemployed (with students and unemployed the most disconnected) and significant difference felt by differing ethnic groups.

Socio-economic

There is nothing much more that can be said.  It is a well-researched and known issues that socio-economic disparity is a key factor in poor well-being of children, and in New Zealand that Tamariki Māori, more than another child, live in disadvantaged circumstances. And in Tai Tokerau, we have the highest proportion of whanau and Tamariki living in very high deprivation.

 Poverty is an issue for children in Tai Tokerau with most living in area with high deprivation (defined   6 or more on the deprivation scale) however disparity within the region is less, as there are very few areas with low soci-economic ratings. 

 However, disparity in Tai Tokerau, when compared with the rest of New Zealand is high – we have one of the highest deprivation ratings in NZ with community, iwi, Māori, whanau and individuals having very few resources to contribute to the fight for our Tamariki.  

Tai Timu Tai Pari strongly advocates for equity of funding for our Tama-Ariki and region.

Scenarios

A range of scenarios have been produced ranging from the worst (low social cohesion and high socioeconomic disparity) where there is entrenched poverty, fragmented social bonds, worsening child well-being, weak and distrusted institutions, rising social tensions and environmental and climate vulnerability. To the best (high social cohesion and low soci-economic disparity) with equitable economic conditions, strong social connections, thriving families and children, inclusive and culturally responsive systems, community and civic engagement and resilience to future challenges.

Feedback was requested regarding which scenario is the most favorable and the reasons behind it. The information provided clearly indicates that scenario 4 is the preferred option for Tamariki, as it states that “reduced material hardship and strong social bonds allow children to grow into thriving adults, breaking cycles of disparity” (page 25).

 The next request was to assess what might be likely by 2040. Tai Timu Tai Pari believe that  current Coalition government policies, scenario 3 is likely, characterized by high social cohesion (despite the recent opposition to the proposed and failed Treaty of Waitangi Bill and the repeal of Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989) but significant socio-economic disparity.

 We believe that Scenario 3 will rely on a social investment approach involving non-governmental entities to support families and address mental health issues through cultural practices. It will look to Māori/iwi and community initiatives to address historic harm and trauma, including system racism.

 The risks for our Tamariki are high if systemic inequities in Tai Tokerau persist. Tai Tokerau communities are not on the same starting line as most of New Zealand. While we have some of the highest levels of social connection (we ask each other for help and get it), this masks or means less light is focused on our lack of resources, demonstrated by the highest levels of deprivation in New Zealand/Aotearoa. (Source: StatsNZ; Wellbeing statistics 2023 (updated).

Part 2

Arising from the discussion of trends, driver and scenario OT have come up with a range of options. They are:

1.      Develop and agree a long-term (10-15 year) multi-partisan strategy and action plan

2.      Address the root cause of child maltreatment through a balance of reinforcing universal, targeted community-led and whanau centred approaches

3.      Improve public awareness and understanding (of child maltreatment)

4.      Grow collective workforce capability to seek to change short-term funding models to longer-term, stop competitive funding models that disincentivise collaboration, but place more emphasis on informal support for prevention and early intervention to relieve pressure on statutory services, rather than seeking to minimise harm and to support the wellbeing of Tamariki.  In addition to ensuring this is well funded they seek to have better and more trauma-informed care across the system with a Kaupapa Māori lens.

5.      Devolution to shift – rather than allowing more autonomy and independence, this is essentially a different funding model with central government retaining almost all control but transferring accountability to address root causes to communities.

6.      Improve technology systems including data sharing and data quality.

Our response to the options developed reflect our understanding of how precious Tamariki are and that their name has been imbued with a long line of whakapapa and history.  The word Tamariki is not just a simple translation to mean child, but is derived from two words, Tama-iti meaning Son and Ariki meaning Chief or High Priest, the highest earth bound being known to Māori. Translated literally Tama-Ariki means The Son of the Chief or High Priest.   Although interpretations may differ, they arrive at a point which illustrates the high regard children are held.  

Māori did not merely see children as smaller beings in our village but rather gifts from God, Taonga Tuku Iho.  Māori have honoured these gifts by giving Tama-Ariki as the name for all children.  Acknowledging not only their place but also importance in Māori society.  With this great gift also brings responsibility to nurture them.  We acknowledge all of those before us and all that are yet to come because we are all ultimately connected.  

Tama-Ariki need a nurturing and holistic approach focused on prevention, racial equity, and overall well-being. We feel that the current LTIB has a limited focus, mainly addressing the costs associated with statutory child protection. As a community, we urge Government Ministries to collaborate to enhance the children’s system, acknowledging that Tamariki are not isolated; they are integral parts of families and whanau. There is a crucial need for substantial direct investment in the well-being of whanau as a whole. 

The significance of early intervention is largely neglected, or its importance is downplayed in the LTIB. Although early intervention and direct services may require a greater initial investment, a disciplined and tough decision in our current economic times, this will greatly diminish the need for statutory services by 2040, while also preventing further harm to the lives of Tama-Ariki. This aligns closely with the Social Investment approach that is currently embraced by the Coalition Government. 

The proposed next steps or options are all worthy processes if the focus remains focused on the care of Tama-Ariki and their whanau as they represent the mauri of our tupuna and the mana of our future.

 …………………………………………………………..

Signed on behalf of Tai Timu Tia Pari Limited

William Kaipo

CEO

Dated 12 May 2025

 Information sources

The Helen Clark Foundation/Mahi a Rongo, Social Cohesion in New Zealand, April 2025

OCED (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy Makers, OCED Multi-level Governance Studies, OCED Publishing Paris

Digital Equity Coalition Aotearoa (Dec 2023); Affordable connectivity in Aotearoa

Oranga Tamariki (2023), Factors associated with disparities experienced by Māori children in the acre and protection system, Wellington

Evidence Centre (2021) Decentralisation Evidence Brief Wellington New Zealand, Misitry for Children Oranga Tamariki

Tai Timu Tai Pari (2024) Tama-Ariki, Business Case for Enabling Communities, Whangarei

Statistics NZ (2023); Census Place