Critical gap 3

Our 2024 review found that information sharing was an ongoing issue. While the legal basis to share information was not at issue, there was a lack of clarity about whether information sharing was permitted by agencies, particularly for frontline kaimahi. As a result, information was not always shared across agencies as envisaged by legislation.

We noted that many professionals appeared to hold a view that simply referring concerns to Oranga Tamariki covers off their responsibilities as a children’s agency, and this view remains. However, children’s agencies’ information-sharing responsibilities are more than just making a report of concern. Agencies need to work collaboratively so there is a better understanding of risk. Although the number of reports of concern from professionals has increased, which we discuss in more detail later in this report, there is nothing to suggest that information is being shared and connected more effectively now than when we last reported.

In our monitoring engagements, we continued to hear that information sharing remains a barrier. We heard this from the multi-agency response tables we spoke with, and Corrections kaimahi told us they need Oranga Tamariki to share more information with them. Oranga Tamariki told us it has developed guidance for children’s agencies around the information-sharing provisions in the Oranga Tamariki Act. Despite this, there is nothing to suggest that information is being shared more routinely by frontline kaimahi now than when we last reported.

Government announcements in October 2025 accepting the recommendations of the Poutasi report stated that it was reinforcing a clear expectation that children’s agencies share information where there are safety and wellbeing concerns for tamarikiClosetamariki
Children (plural) aged 0-13 yearsView the full glossary. It noted that the Privacy Commissioner would work alongside agencies to achieve this. We were told that, as well as reinforcing this message, the Privacy Commissioner will participate in workshops and lead proactive messaging.

The action for Oranga Tamariki and Corrections to review their relationship agreement has not been completed but is now underway.

The longstanding issue of information not being shared to keep tamariki and rangatahiCloserangatahi
Young person aged 14 – 21 years of ageView the full glossary safe is frequently cited in child death reviews as missed opportunities.

Shared training is required to be developed and delivered across agencies and community providers to close this critical gap. This will also require an ongoing focus to avoid repeating problems with understanding when to share information and the practice of doing that.

A new interagency hub will notify Oranga Tamariki of applications for financial assistance by caregivers of a child whose parent is in prison

The Poutasi report recommended that MSDCloseMSD
Ministry of Social DevelopmentView the full glossary should notify Oranga Tamariki when a caregiver who is not a lawful guardian and who has not been reviewed by Oranga Tamariki or authorised through the Family Court requests a sole parent benefit or other assistance, including emergency housing support, for a child whose caregiver is in prison. The Poutasi report was clear that this is not about assessing whether a caregiver is entitled to financial assistance but that this is an opportunity for Oranga Tamariki to assess whether tamariki and rangatahi in this situation are at risk.

Our 2024 review noted that implementing this recommendation depended on decisions being made about recommendations to vet caregivers. MSD also told us that it reports concerns to Oranga Tamariki where it considers tamariki to be in need of care and protection. But MSD does not consider that application for a sole parent benefit or other support is, in itself, sufficient grounds for it to notify Oranga Tamariki. It told us that a clear purpose for sharing information in this context would need to be established through decisions on recommendations on vetting caregivers in the Poutasi report.

As noted in critical gap one, an interagency hub is being established to identify and respond to the needs of tamariki whose sole parent is remanded in custody and/or sentenced to imprisonment. MSD will make a report of concern to Oranga Tamariki when it receives an application for a benefit or other assistance from a caregiver that is for, or includes, a child the applicant is not the legal guardian of and where the parent(s) of that child is in prison. Information would then be shared through the hub as set out under critical gap one, to help triage the report of concern and determine the most appropriate response.

The interagency hub is expected to be established in January 2026, and MSD intends to update processes and begin to identify and share information with the hub from February 2026 onwards.

Guidance on information sharing has not led to improved practice but the Privacy Commissioner will work with children’s agencies to reinforce expectations around information sharing

The Poutasi report also recommended improving understanding of the information-sharing regime in the Oranga Tamariki Act to educate and encourage child welfare and protection agencies and individuals in the sector to share information with other child welfare and protection agencies on an ongoing basis. Sharing information is one way agencies can pull together a fuller picture of risk for tamariki and rangatahi.

Appropriate sharing of information has also been repeatedly recommended in previous child death reviews.

Oranga Tamariki advised it had recently developed guidance on the informationsharing regime in the Oranga Tamariki Act and had given this guidance to other children’s agencies. Child and Youth Ministers subsequently asked the agencies for an update on their information-sharing policies and how they are giving effect to them in practice.

Several agencies gave us a copy of the information they had respectively given to the Child and Youth Ministers detailing how information is being shared. This primarily identified the specific legislation and mechanisms able to be used to share information and, at a high level, how information sharing should happen in practice. It did not include any data that measured changes to how or how often information is shared or any assurances that frontline kaimahi are more aware of when and how to share information than they were when we last reported. It is also not clear what the expectations of Child and Youth Ministers were or whether the information provided met their expectations.

Advice to Ministers set out expectations for when kaimahi would share information, with a particular focus on information sharing with Oranga Tamariki. Some agencies stated that information sharing happens at the frontline regularly.

The Ministry of Education advised that it has provided information-sharing guidance and its Information Management team offers information-sharing training. The Ministry of Education provides training to schools, ECE services and Ministry kaimahi on request. However, due to resourcing, it is not able to deliver training on a wide scale. Where training is provided, it is intended to support the sharing of information for the wellbeing and safety of tamariki, particularly at the frontline.

The Ministry of Education noted that it does not have oversight of whether or how the education sector is using the information-sharing provisions in section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act between education providers or with other child welfare and protection agencies.

MSD advised that its information sharing with Oranga Tamariki is primarily reactive – responding to requests for information – rather than proactive sharing on its own initiative. It also noted that sharing information about child wellbeing is more complex. Specific guidance for MSD Kaimahi on when it would be helpful for Oranga Tamariki to have information from MSD on child wellbeing could be of assistance.

Police noted that agencies need to continuously ensure staff are educated on when to share information and what information they are entitled to share.

Health NZ noted that clinical staff complete an eight-hour Violence Intervention Programme core training session followed by refresher training every two years. This training includes information-sharing provisions and references to relevant internal and external policies and legislation. However, as noted earlier in this report, Dr Kelly questions whether doctors routinely attend this training.

We asked Oranga Tamariki if it had any information or context that shows information is being shared more routinely by frontline professionals now. It told us information sharing is encouraged by its frontline professionals and that it has a lot of information readily available to support how and when this can occur.

There is no evidence that the guidance provided by Oranga Tamariki to children’s agencies on how information can be shared under the Oranga Tamariki Act has led to improved information-sharing practices. It is unclear whether it is understood why information is not being shared by frontline professionals across the sector.

However, announcements the Government made in October 2025 after accepting the recommendations of the Poutasi report stated that the Privacy Commissioner would work alongside children’s agencies to reinforce expectations of information sharing.

In November 2025, the Privacy Commissioner issued a statement reinforcing that children’s safety and wellbeing comes first, and there are no legislative barriers to sharing information where there are concerns about this. The Privacy Commissioner also issued new guidance about sharing information for child wellbeing and safety purposes.³⁴ They met with regional public service leadership groups to communicate clear expectations for information sharing and provide guidance on doing so safely. These groups intend to communicate this to their regional networks.

We will be looking to understand whether the work of the Privacy Commissioner leads to improved information sharing practice in our future monitoring.

Issuing guidance alone is unlikely to shift decades of differences in practice and understanding across the oranga tamariki system. If this is to be overcome, shared training developed and delivered across agencies and community providers is likely to be needed. It may be that the work led by the Privacy Commissioner will deliver on this.

However, even if improvements are made, turnover in the sector and roles with rotations mean that ongoing focus will be needed to avoid the repetition of problems with the understanding and practice of sharing information.

Even multi-agency response tables often struggle to share information

The multi-agency response tables we met with told us sharing information is fundamental to how the tables work. We heard that multiple legislative mechanisms enable information to be shared but not all agencies represented at the tables co-operated in sharing information – in one region, Oranga Tamariki was not participating, and in another region, it was not sharing information it held to support a multi-agency approach to meet tamariki and rangatahi needs.

Two family violence tables we met with said the Ministry of Education was not represented and that it was difficult to connect with the right parts of the Ministry. This is partly due to the Ministry of Education’s structure, as information from the table goes to a regional contact who is then responsible for passing it on to individual schools.

The benefit of having the Ministry of Education at the table was evident in one region in relation to tamariki who had been exposed to family violence. We heard the shared information meant schools were able to respond to behaviours from these tamariki and rangatahi with an understanding of what was happening for them – helping meet their needs and preventing several suspensions and exclusions.

In contrast, a multi-agency table we met with in another region told us that information sharing with the Ministry of Education was not working so well and that similar needs of tamariki and rangatahi in their region were not being met.

In Hastings, kaimahi from the multi-agency table Te Kura have an arrangement where they hot desk in the offices of other agencies from the table. They said this helps to keep the agencies connected and aware of contracts that other agencies have – as well as what services have been cut – so the table knows what services are available to refer tamariki, rangatahi and whānauClosewhānau
Whānau refers to people who are biologically linked or share whakapapa. For the Monitor’s monitoring purposes, whānau includes parents, whānau members living with tamariki at the point they have come into care View the full glossary to for support. We were told whānau are aware that Te Kura agencies are sharing information and that sharing information enables a wider picture of the safety of whānau.

Corrections kaimahi need more information from Oranga Tamariki

In our engagements with Corrections kaimahi, we heard that information sharing with Oranga Tamariki is a barrier.

“Sharing of information [with Oranga Tamariki] is not great. If a case has an allocated social worker, then [Corrections kaimahi] would get informed but there is a lag and some serious cases are unallocated, but because the woman is here, [the cases] don’t get allocated [to an Oranga Tamariki social worker] and then we don’t know what is happening.” CORRECTIONS KAIMAHI

“From a custody perspective, the women may not be involved with our prison social worker, but then suddenly their kids get uplifted, and we then have to manage that and try and contact Oranga Tamariki while the mums are freaking out. Would be great if Oranga Tamariki let us know as soon as they can and also let the mum know where their kids have gone to. They don’t know. Also, these mums [then] can’t call their kids as [they] are no longer on their phone list [due to moving and not having current contact details].” CORRECTIONS KAIMAHI

Despite these issues with information sharing between agencies, as we discuss later under critical gap four, reports of concern from Corrections kaimahi to Oranga Tamariki have increased. In addition, Corrections provides notifications to Oranga Tamariki about some prisoners prior to their discharge from prison.

Notifications about prisoners being discharged are not intended to be reports of concern, as Corrections does not have sufficient information to determine if the release of the prisoner is a concern for tamariki. Instead, it shares this information so that Oranga Tamariki can assess the risk. However, Oranga Tamariki records all notifications as reports of concern.

Data from Oranga Tamariki shows it is taking further action in response to both reports of concern and notifications it receives from Corrections. This is because it progresses more reports for further action than Corrections makes as reports of concern. Because Oranga Tamariki does not distinguish between reports of concern and notifications, we cannot be sure of the breakdown of how many notifications are progressed for further action relative to the reports of concern, but we know it is resulting in some action being taken to keep tamariki safe.

While Corrections is passing regular information to Oranga Tamariki, improving two-way communication between the two agencies could further improve safety and outcomes for tamariki who have a parent or parents in prison or being released from prison.

 Corrections and Oranga Tamariki have still not reviewed their relationship agreement

In 2022, Corrections set itself an action to review the relationship agreement it has with Oranga Tamariki and thereafter ensure a review is undertaken every two years. This remains incomplete.

Corrections advised the current relationship agreement between it and Oranga Tamariki was signed in 2018. Corrections noted that it and Oranga Tamariki have been working on reviewing and updating several schedules to the relationship agreement. The focus has been on schedules relating to information sharing, placement of young people, electronic monitoring and the operational protocol on victim notification. Although the relationship agreement has not been reviewed, the agreement remains in place until it is withdrawn or superseded by a new agreement.

Corrections noted that it and Oranga Tamariki have both been through organisational change processes. It said these contributed to resourcing pressures that have had a significant impact on both agencies’ ability to progress work on the relationship agreement and its schedules. It confirmed the agencies are now working collaboratively to progress this. The overarching relationship agreement is undergoing internal review by Corrections, with an Oranga Tamariki review expected to be sought shortly.

This suggests that policy directions to cut back-office functions have had an adverse impact on agencies’ ability to deliver on this important work programme.

Information sharing by agencies to keep tamarikiClosetamariki
Children (plural) aged 0-13 yearsView the full glossary safe is an enduring issue. The Poutasi report noted that improved information sharing had been called for multiple times in 30 years of reviews. It remains an issue in the child death reviews we looked at.

Reviews by both Police and Oranga Tamariki point out it is critical that information is shared but opportunities for professionals to do this are not being taken up.

“… The sharing of information between agencies is critical to establishing any insight as to risk around individuals and or family.” POLICE CHILD DEATH REVIEW

“Overall, the assessment lacks depth and breadth and does not acknowledge the seriousness of the injuries to [the child] or the suspicion that the injuries are inflicted. There is no documented consultation with any other professionals, limited family members and no information is triangulated.” ORANGA TAMARIKI CHILD DEATH REVIEW

33 Office of the Inspectorate. (2022). Summary of the Office of Inspectorate’s review. inspectorate.corrections.govt. nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/49113/summary_-_final.pdf
34 privacy.org.nz/resources-and-learning/a-z-topics/information-sharing-childrens-wellbeing-and-safety/