Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
Question No. 2—Children
2. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Has he read Treasury’s release titled “Overview of the financial position of Oranga Tamariki, the key issues it faces from a financial perspective”; and, if he has read it, does he still stand by his statement that the Government’s ability to protect and support vulnerable children is “improving”?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): In answer to both parts of the question, yes.
Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that Oranga Tamariki (OT) have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to reprioritise $42 million, and, if so, how has he held Oranga Tamariki accountable for spending $42 million without proper permission?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Decisions around that $42 million were made before I became Minister, but the current chief executive has inherited an agency where the financial systems weren’t up to scratch, and they’re well aware of my expectations in terms of making sure their systems are up to scratch.
David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just seek your guidance. Is it permissible for a Minister to address a question by saying it was the previous Minister that did it? Surely he’s responsible for the Government in continuity.
SPEAKER: Can you ask the question again, please?
Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that Oranga Tamariki have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to reprioritise $42 million; if so, how has he held OT accountable for spending $42 million without proper permission?
SPEAKER: It wasn’t properly addressed.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I stand by the answer I gave. The chief executive inherited financial systems that weren’t up to scratch. And I’ve made it very clear that they need to get those systems up to scratch.
SPEAKER: Karen Chhour—I’ll give you an extra question.
Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that OT have created an ongoing cost pressure of $20 million into subsequent years directly attributable to their improper spending decisions, and, if so, will the Minister cut services or ask for more money to cover this $20 million shortfall?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that shortfall has been met through baselines.
Karen Chhour: Why does the Minister think Treasury stated that Oranga Tamariki is “a disparate collection of ideas, [and] not governed by a clear organisational strategy”, and does he believe that as Minister he is ultimately responsible for the organisation’s strategy?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oranga Tamariki was quite disparate and that is what we are doing to—we have put in place the future direction plan to make sure that it has some purpose and direction.
Karen Chhour: Does the Minister agree with Treasury’s assessment that Oranga Tamariki’s cost per child significantly increased with no clear explanation or improvement in outcomes for children?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: One of Oranga Tamariki’s problems was that it actually did some good work but was terrible at telling its story. And one of the parts of that is that 20 percent of funding actually goes to 2 percent of children with the highest needs. Now, some of their needs are such that it’s not appropriate to describe them here in the House, but I’m not going to nickel and dime, or I’m not going to tell Oranga Tamariki that they should skimp on the work to protect those children or protect the workers that look after those children.
Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister believe that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, the precursor to Oranga Tamariki, was established with sufficiently robust financial controls?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, the answer is no. And that’s what I’ve said, that the system that the current chief executive inherited, their financial systems weren’t up to scratch, and they are now making sure that those systems are improved.
Karen Chhour: Does the Minister think that OT has improved and does he still stand by his statement that Oranga Tamariki is on the right track?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, absolutely. Let me just run through a couple of statistics. The section 78 uplifts are down 73 percent since 2018. The numbers of children in care have decreased by 25 percent since 2018. Māori provider funding has increased 168 percent since 2018. But here’s the statistic that I think is most important. There are some 50,000 children and their whānau that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki every year through reports of concern or family group conferences who are not in Oranga Tamariki care. They are keeping children and their whānau out of the system and that is a big improvement.
