Having completed our review, we are not confident that in similar situations to Malachi are any more likely to be seen, or kept safe by the system, than they were when Malachi died. There are several contributing factors we have considered in reaching this key finding, as set out below.
Eighteen months on from the publication of Dame Karen Poutasi’s review (Poutasi review) and two and a half years since the death of Malachi, there has been little progress.
Despite provisions in legislation placing responsibilities on children’s agencies to prioritise child protection, including the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan (OTAP), there remains limited collaboration and child protection is still largely seen as an issue for the Police or Oranga Tamariki to respond to.
Many professionals appear to hold a view that simply referring concerns to Oranga Tamariki covers off their responsibilities as a children’s agency. Some still do not report concerns when they should. Others have given up reporting to Oranga Tamariki because of a perceived lack of action and a resulting loss of trust and confidence.
Some of these recommendations require decisions to be made by government and some also require legislative change. These are still to be progressed.
Other recommendations are within the control of chief executives. These include adding the health sector as a partner to the Child Protection Protocol between NZ Police and Oranga Tamariki, building on existing multi-agency teams working in communities
in partnership with and Non-Government Organisations (), improving the understanding of when information can be shared, and educating and training the children’s workforce on when to report abuse. While discussions continue, we are yet to see any implementation.
We heard that agencies have made slightly more progress in response to their own internal reviews. Even so, many of these actions, which agencies set themselves and which are within their own mandate to progress, have still not been achieved.
Oranga Tamariki has taken specific actions following a review by the Chief Social Worker. Much of the Chief Social Worker’s review focused on practice at site level. Despite Oranga Tamariki advising that initial planned actions have been completed, practice at the sites we visited has not yet substantively changed. Actions taken were largely focused on addressing symptoms, such as reminding staff about using practice guidance, one-off training opportunities and reviewing tools on performance development. While these are useful to a degree, if the root causes of practice issues are not addressed, only limited change can occur. Oranga Tamariki is working towards a ‘practice shift’, but our observation is that it is yet to make a difference.
Most initial reports of concern are assessed by the Oranga Tamariki National Contact Centre (NCC) which sends those requiring further action to local sites. Around half of NCC decisions referred to sites for further action are overturned by the site. When the site decides to take no further action, the child is not seen by Oranga Tamariki. There are a number of reasons a site may overturn the NCC decision, however, we heard staff capacity was having an undue impact on decision making. We also observed time spent reworking NCC assessments when this time could have been used to see tamariki.
We also heard there had been a shift in Oranga Tamariki practice to give greater weight to the voice of , with the needs and safety of tamariki secondary. Oranga Tamariki senior leadership told us this was not the intent of the practice shift. It also explained that “the journey to fully introduce and embed this approach is not yet complete”.
We note that the Ministerial Advisory Board’s report in 2021, Kahu Aroha, reported similar concerns about the disconnect between what national office understood practice to be and what social workers were experiencing at the frontline.
Irrespective of whether this is a widely held misinterpretation, or is limited to specific regions or sites, it is something that OT needs to consider as it continues to implement its practice shift. Involving and working with whānau is critical, but the safety of the child must remain paramount.
Actions progressed are not contributing to the system wide change envisaged by the Poutasi review. There continues to be a lack of clarity about the statutory role of Oranga Tamariki and the appropriate threshold for its intervention.
Government agencies have not implemented a nationally consistent, collaborative way of working where each agency prioritises its own role in keeping tamariki safe, and in working together. Working together must also include local iwi and NGO partners, who can be called upon to support whānau where early intervention may be more appropriate. If this is to be achieved, an iwi/community sector must be sufficiently resourced to work alongside whānau, in an enduring and meaningful way.