Briefing to the
incoming
Commissioner
Office of the Children’s Commissioner
May 2016

FOREWORD FROM OUTGOING COMMISSIONER
Welcome to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. You are
taking up the role of Children’s Commissioner at a very important
time. The Review of Child, Youth and Family and work under the
Children’s Action Plan may lead to opportunities to improve the
lives of vulnerable children.
To meet these chal enges you will find a smart, committed and influential team in
place. It has been my privilege to lead them and I’m sure you will enjoy the
experience too.
Hei whakariterite te
You have come at a chal enging time. The Office has two main functions; advocating
tau kotahi
for children and monitoring the care and protection system. The care and protection
Whakatōkia he mara
system is currently failing too many children and needs to change. The Office’s role
kai
in monitoring the system must also change. The report from the Expert Advisory
Panel and the Minister’s subsequent announcements has indicated that it will be
Hei whakariterite mo
necessary to increase the scope of the Office’s responsibilities and its resourcing.
te ngahuru tau
Given the significant change programme underway across the care and protection
Whakatōkia he rākau
system it is important that the monitoring of the system is robust so that Parliament
and the public can be confident that services for vulnerable children are improving
Hei whakariterite mo
and that children are safe. Your team wil  have advice on the Office’s role and scope
nga rau kei tua
and associated resourcing implications ready for you to engage with the Minister on
Poipoia nga tamariki
what an enhanced monitoring service would offer and how that would need to be
funded.
To plan for a year,
plant a garden
To take up the opportunity to expand on the Office’s monitoring activity, alongside
engaging with the Minister, it will be important to engage with the officials and
To plan for a decade,
frontline professionals who are involved in designing the new system and the
plant trees
monitoring of it so that you can inform and help shape the outcome. At the same
To plan for a future,
time the team must continue to deliver on its current responsibilities, keep the public
nurture children
and the sector informed and maintain public and professional confidence in the care
and protection system.
Public support to improve children’s lives has never been stronger. You will be
privileged to have many conversations with people who can change children’s lives, both one-
to-one and to large audiences. My experience is that New Zealanders love children and believe
that all children deserve a fair chance, and are appalled that this is not currently so. There are
countless good people who want to make a difference.
Yours will be a complex and demanding role, but immensely rewarding. You have a team that is
capable and wil  support you, and you have the support of the New Zealand public and the
sector. Be bold. Speak truth to power and keep the discussion focused at all times on what the
children and young people need and deserve.
My very best wishes

Russell Wills

Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

3

PART 1: WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO
The Children’s Commissioner is an Independent Crown entity
whose primary role is to advocate for New Zealand children under
the age of 18 years.
What that means in practice is that your team care about children
and young people and they work hard to influence decision makers
to ensure we achieve better outcomes for them, and particularly for
our most vulnerable children.
WHY WE HAVE A CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER
Children (including young people under the age of 18) are a core part of our society, but they
are not included in our democratic process – they have no vote and often no voice in major
decisions that impact them. Children often have limited power or influence.
It is the role of the Children’s Commissioner to be their voice: to encourage organisations to
take more child-centred approaches, to advocate for improving children’s wellbeing, and to
raise awareness of issues where children are not getting a fair go. You are also responsible for
monitoring the quality of services being provided by the statutory care and protection and
youth justice systems.
YOUR STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
The Children’s Commissioner Act (2003) outlines the key functions of the Commissioner’s
statutory role and includes:
> monitoring and assessing the policies and practices of Child, Youth and Family (CYF) and any
other services provided under the  Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act 1989
(CYP&F Act);
> systemic advocacy and investigation of issues compromising the interests, rights and
wellbeing of children and young people
> raising awareness and understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCROC) and advancing and monitoring the application of UNCROC by the State
> promoting the participation of children and their interests in any decisions that affect their
lives or welfare.
Another key statutory function was added by the Crimes of Torture Amendment Act 2006 to
monitor CYF residences as a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) in respect of the Optional
Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).
Underpinning all of these functions is the requirement that the Commissioner develops a means
of consulting with children and young people and have their views inform the Office’s advice,
and recommendations.
The Act also provides extensive provisions for undertaking investigations, but no investigations
have been undertaken in recent years.
THE CURRENT VISION
That Aotearoa New Zealand is a place where all children thrive.
4

HOW ARE CHILDREN DOING?
The vast majority of New Zealand children are doing well and achieving positive outcomes --
they live in supportive homes and receive the care that they need and deserve, and benefit from
the protections provided in legislation to prevent them from harm, abuse and neglect; and they
are able to access universal education and health services that support them to live happy and
healthy lives.
Unfortunately, a significant proportion of our children need extra support and services to enable
them to thrive. We see the evidence of this in New Zealand’s poor rating in international
comparisons of child health and wel -being and in our low level of investment in young children.
Our children’s outcomes differ significantly by ethnicity. While there are children across all
ethnic groups who are achieving excel ent outcomes and thriving, we know that there is
significant over-representation of Māori children among those experiencing poor outcomes.
CURRENT PRIORITIES
Over the past two years and as outlined in the 2014-2018 Statement of Intent the priorities the
Office has been working on have been to:
> ensure that children and young people in the care of CYF are receiving quality services that
improve their outcomes and wellbeing and
> advocate for the needs of vulnerable children at risk of poor outcomes to ensure they get the
services, supports and resources they need to be kept safe and thrive.
These priorities were chosen so that we could ensure that our work was clearly focused on the
most vulnerable children in New Zealand and where our work could have the biggest impact for
the children that need the most support. Refining our priorities to two allowed the Office to
allocate our resources more effectively so that our advice is focused and is better able to
achieve results. Within these two priorities we have specifical y focused on raising issues about
child poverty and deprivation, inputting into the work on the Children’s Action Plan, and
embedding a new monitoring framework to assess CYF’s performance in providing services to
children and young people in their care.
As the new Commissioner you will have the opportunity to consider the expectations signaled
to you by the Minister of Social Development and the final report from the Expert Advisory
Panel (EAP) on Modernising Child, Youth and Family, as you set the strategic direction and
priorities for your term. This includes considering how the role of the Children’s Commissioner
may evolve as the new operating model for care and protection is implemented.
The Office has received Ministerial agreement to delay updating the Statement of Intent so you
also have the opportunity to refresh that document.

Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

5

CURRENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
The following diagram outlines the Office’s current main priorities for 2016/17, and the longer-
term outcomes that the Office has been working to, and the impacts we have aimed to make
(set within the context of the Government’s broader objectives for vulnerable children).

Our
New Zealand is a place where all children thrive
Vision
Outcomes
Children and young people in the care of Child, Youth & Family and those
vulnerable to poor outcomes get the services, supports and resources they need
to be kept safe and thrive

WIDE RANGE OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
(Including cross Government and non-government activity on the Better

Public Service targets for vulnerable children, the Children’s Action Plan and
implementation of the recommendations of the Final Report from the Expert
Panel on Modernising Child, Youth and Family)

Monitoring and Investigations
Individual and Systemic Advocacy
Our
Our recommendations for improving
Our advice is valued and sought by
Impacts
CYF systems and services are agreed
stakeholders and is used to shape policy
and implemented
and legislation for vulnerable children
Our
CYF sites and residences are visited
Provision of child-focused policy advice
Outputs
and assessed and reports with
or submissions to select committees,
findings and recommendations are
Government departments and Ministers
provided to CYF for action
Child Poverty Monitor produced
Annual State of Care report produced
What We
Monitor the quality of services
Advocate for and advise on the rights
Do
provided to children under the CYP&F
and wel being of vulnerable children
Act
Our
Children and Young People receiving
Vulnerable children at risk of poor
Priorities
statutory care services
outcomes
How we
We provide authoritative, independent advice on the wellbeing of children
Work
and young people

6

How we work
Over the past five years the office has changed how it engages on issues,
the quality of the work it produces and how we work with stakeholders.
Our aim is to provide authoritative, independent advice on the wel being of children and young
people and provide a voice for their views and best interests. Underpinning al  of our work are
two key platforms. The first is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCROC). All of the work we do is about ensuring that children, and in particular the most
vulnerable, have access to the services, supports and resources that they need to thrive. The
second platform is the voice of children and ensuring that it informs the work that we do and
grounds our advice as far as practicable in their views and what they know works for them.
Across both our monitoring and advocacy work we actively consider where our limited
resources and time are best spent and focused. As issues arise or when we are asked to consider
a particular concern, we have to assess where we can add the most value, to the benefit of the
most children. We also aim to be proactive and identify the key issues, good practice and
potential policy or operational solutions that could be put forward to decision makers. We have
also focused on putting out information and advice proactively through our website and
through social media channels such as Twitter and Facebook. Through maintaining an
authoritative and evidence informed approach we try to influence a range of people and
agencies to invest in or work better for children.
Ultimately the approach over the past 3-5 years has been to ensure our focus is strategic and
our activities are in areas where we can achieve systemic change. We need to work
constructively and positively with key decision makers to influence their investment in children.
We identify ways to partner and collaborate to amplify our impact and we endeavor to produce
credible, reasoned and objective advice. The diagram below shows how these components
come together to drive our work and achieve the best possible outcomes.

We identify
We influence others to
constructive solutions
prioritise, invest and
based on best practice
improve their services
and evidence
in and to children &
young people
We inform others
We include the voices
using our expertise
and views of children in
and advice to raise
our work, and support
awareness of issues
Authoritative,
other agencies to
for children and young
independent
consult with children &
people
experts on the
young people
wellbeing of
children and
young people
This background provides you with an understanding of how the Office and your team currently
operate and gives you a starting point for considering your own strategy and priorities for your
term. It also provides a frame for considering how the core functions of the Office can be
maintained while you focus on the changes that will impact the Office from the review of CYF.

Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

7

What we do - our key products and activities
We focus on three broad functions that are specified in the Children’s
Commissioner Act 2003: monitoring services provided under the CYP&F Act,
advocacy on issues facing children, and promoting and monitoring the
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In this section we outline the core functions of the Office and the approach that is currently
taken to deliver the work and activities required to deliver on the statutory mandate of the
Office.
MONITORING OF CYF SERVICES
The mandate of an independent Commissioner to monitor and investigate the policies and
practices of Child, Youth and Family is a key element of the system in place to support high-
quality policy and service delivery for our most vulnerable children and young people.
While the Children’s Commissioner has a statutory responsibility to monitor and assess services
provided under the CYP&F Act, it is not prescribed how the monitoring role should be carried
out. The monitoring approach has evolved over time. In late 2013 we developed a new
monitoring framework to ensure that our monitoring was as effective as possible within the
constraints of our mandate and our limited resources.
Our monitoring framework is based on evidence regarding what works for children and young
people and practice experience. It captures the range of elements that we expect to see when
an organisation is delivering consistent, high quality services that will lead to better outcomes
for children and young people. Underpinning our framework are two key elements that are
particularly important for improving outcomes for children and young people in New Zealand:
•  The extent to which CYF listens to, communicates and involves children and young
people in decisions that affect them.
•  How well CYF delivers services that meet the needs of mokopuna Māori.
The new framework aims to support a continuous learning culture in CYF, and encourages the
sharing and implementation of best practice across the organisation.
In developing our new framework, we agreed with CYF what constitutes good practice, so when
we engage with staff on our visits and give feedback on their performance we are working from
a shared understanding of what best practice looks like.
The framework introduces three levels of monitoring: at the individual CYF site and residence
level, at the system level, and at the sector level. The approach is premised on increased data
collection to select sites for visits and to inform the focus of the visits, and a more systematic
approach including children and young people’s voices. However, limitations in the level of data
and information from CYF have hindered the intended sampling method to select sites. We
hope to see improvements in the availability of data as a result of the CYF reforms.
The framework also al ows us to consider a range of factors that impact on the performance of a
site or residence. These include domains such as the quality of leadership, direction, operational
management and social work practice. Importantly it provides us with the ability to undertake
thematic assessments of performance. The shift from a site-by-site, point-in-time assessment to
a more strategic view across a number of sites give us a better understanding of CYF’s ability to
provide quality services to children and young people in their care.
In practice, our monitoring involves visiting CYF sites and residences, and talking with staff,
agency and community stakeholders, family, whanau and children. Currently we visit the 9 care
and protection and youth justice residences once every 18 months. We assess their practice
8

under the Office’s new framework and we also undertake an assessment against the OPCAT
framework. Our reviews of CYF sites are done thematically as we assess a sample of 4-5 sites
under a theme or particular issue. Limited resources prevent us reviewing and assessing the
performance of NGOs delivering services to children and young people under section 396 of the
CYP&F Act.
The framework also sets out a revised approach to reporting on the results, to strengthen public
confidence in the performance of the care and protection system. Last year we began the
annual release of a public report (State of Care) to increase transparency about our work and the
work of CYF. Public reporting at an aggregate level also responds to concerns that we do not
release our detailed monitoring findings under the Official Information Act.
We provide detailed reports to CYF and the Minister on all our monitoring, and you will have
responsibility for signing out these reports.
State of Care Report
We released our first annual public report on our monitoring of CYF, the State of
Care report, in August 2015. The report aggregated the findings of our
monitoring activities between January 2014 and June 2015. Along with our
monitoring findings, it includeed the voices and experiences of children in care,
and what we know about their outcomes.
This report brought a public focus to the needs of children in the care of CYF and
increased the transparency of our monitoring work. The Office intends to release
another State of Care report in June 2016. The report will cover the findings from
two thematic reviews undertaken in 2015/2016 and the visits we made to care
and protection, and youth justice residences over the same period.
ADVOCACY
A significant part of the Children’s Commissioner Act covers the Commissioner’s advocacy
function. The range of work of the Advocacy Team includes:
> fulfilling our legislative requirement to promote and monitor the implementation of UNCROC;
> supporting individual advocacy via our child rights advice line;
> fulfilling our legislative requirement to undertake consultation with children so their views and
voices inform all the work of the Commissioner, as well as demonstrate the value of engaging
with children to other agencies;
> providing advice on improving child wellbeing to government agencies, for example, by
participating on relevant steering or working groups;
> making submissions to government consultation and select committee processes on matters
related to child wellbeing.
In the last few years, we have focused on developing strong relationships with Government
agencies so that we can influence the policy and legislative development process early. We have
been invited to be part of early discussions on a range of policy issues facing children, for
example the Government’s work to invest in the 0-5 year age group in the 2016 Budget.
However, there is more work to do to build the trust and confidence of the public service so that
we can continue to be at the table early.
Working with officials early in the policy development process is not straightforward. The Office
needs to balance the Commissioner’s independence with the perception that working with
government might compromise his or her ability to provide an objective view on policy or
legislation. To date we consider that this balance has been achieved well. We have engaged with
the children’s rights and wellbeing sectors so that they understand the approach being taken
and can address any concerns about perceived loss of independence. It is a balancing act that
requires finesse and judgment.
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

9

We have also achieved a wider reach and had greater impact working in collaboration with
other agencies and organisations. However this approach does require considerable time and
input from Office staff to develop and maintain relationships, and ensure that the work makes
the best contribution it can. Some examples of partnerships we have been involved include:
> partnering with JR McKenzie Trust and Otago University to produce the annual Child Poverty
Monitor
> partnering with Philanthropy New Zealand to develop and share advice to business,
philanthropic and community organisations on how to invest in improving outcomes for
children to have the greatest impact, including our Giving2Kids online resources.
> partnering with the Privacy Commissioner to create guidelines on information sharing for
professionals working with vulnerable children.
We strive to integrate a focus on both children’s rights and improving their outcomes in all our
advocacy work. While we maintain a broad ‘watching brief’ across a wide range of issues
impacting child wellbeing, our small team means we need to make some tough decisions about
what we work on. Some specific elements of the advocacy work programme are outlined below.
Child Poverty Monitor
We released the third annual Child Poverty Monitor in December 2015,
and this initiative has been funded to continue through to 2017. This
project is a partnership between the Office, the JR McKenzie Trust as the
funder, and Otago University’s New Zealand Child and Youth
Epidemiology Service who analyses the health and other relevant data.
Arising from the 2012 Expert Advisory Group’s report on Solutions to
Child Poverty, this project tracks progress and provides reliable
information about child poverty across four key measures. The data
presented is all official data released by the Ministry of Social
Development. Our primary role in the partnership has been to present
the information in an accessible and informative way. To date the
information has been web-based using infographics and key messages,
with a full technical report supporting the data. We host a separate
website that holds this material along with other relevant resources. We have utilized social
media channels including Facebook and Twitter to promote the Child Poverty Monitor.
The Child Poverty Monitor has been an effective platform for sharing basic measures of child
poverty, and has been widely quoted by media and others, and used as a proxy for an official
measure.
Consulting with Children
A key activity for the Advocacy Team is to col ect the views of children and young people on a
range of issues, and use their voices to influence policy and inform public debate.
In 2014 we reviewed how we engaged with children and young people. A Youth Advisory Group
of 12 young people from across the country met 3-4 times per year to give us their views on a
range of issues. At the end of the last group’s two year term in December 2014, we concluded it
was time for a new approach. The young people had been very insightful, but the size and age
range of the group limited our ability to get a broader understanding of issues important to
children, including the views of younger and primary school aged children. Resourcing
constraints prevented us increasing the membership of this to address these issues. A new fit-
for-purpose approach, the Children and Young People’s Voices Project (Voices Project), was
designed and tested, and has been in place since mid-2015.
The Voices Project allows us to get views and feedback on topical issues from a larger and more
diverse group of children, in partnership with a network of primary, intermediate and secondary
schools. The present network is predominately based in the Wellington to allow us to develop
and test the model within our existing resources.
10

Since September last year, the Voices Project has collected the views of more than 1,300
students on survey topics such as:
> their choice for the NZ Flag referendum;
> if they want to learn our national languages in school;
> what types of out-of-school activities they participate in;
> who children ask for help/support; and
> what ages they believe young people are capable of doing different things, such as living
independent of an adult.
The responses have informed our advocacy work, and the process is modeling to other agencies
how easy and useful engaging with children can be. We actively encourage government
agencies to engage with children, and have developed an online resource, Listening2Kids, that
provides useful guides, tools and advice on how to do that wel .
We believe there is further potential to develop the Voices Project to support government
consultation with children, by providing this service on a cost recovery basis. This is discussed as
a strategic opportunity in Part 3 of this briefing.
Supporting the Minister with Youth Advice
Last year the Minister gave us extra funding to support the Review of CYF by convening a
specialist Youth Advisory Panel (YAP) of young people who were, or had been, in state care.
They gave their views on options for reform based on their lived experiences. The YAP was
highly valued by the Minister and helped ensure the work focused on what would work for the
children and young people receiving the service.
As a result of the Minister’s positive experience of the YAP, we have been asked to coordinate
another group to advise her on the transformation of the care system. This work, the Youth
Advice on the Care System (YACS), is just beginning. We have been provided additional funding
for this activity. The overall project is being managed as part of the Advocacy work programme
and we are in the process of recruiting a contractor to undertake the facilitation and
engagement work.
Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART)
The Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART) is established under the
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to provide the Minister of Health with
advice on issues related to reproductive technology. The Children’s Commissioner (or his or her
delegate) is a statutory appointee to the ACART Committee to advocate for the interests of
children born from assisted reproduction (e.g. in-vitro fertilisation). ACART cover costs
associated with participation.
The current appointment to ACART representing the Children’s Commissioner is staff member
Dr Kathleen Logan. Kathleen brings extensive children’s rights knowledge and scientific
expertise to this role. Her term began in April 2015 and is for three years.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (UNCROC)
The 2003 Act made UNCROC a fundamental consideration for the
Commissioner and confirmed the mandate to promote the rights of all
children. This work is led by the Advocacy Team and underpins all the work
of our Office.
New Zealand’s commitment to UNCROC
The Commissioner has a statutory mandate to undertake a range of
functions that will lead to the improved wellbeing of children, including
consulting with children, promoting children’s rights and the
implementation of UNCROC, and working with other agencies to promote child-centred
approaches as part of our UNCROC activity.
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

11

UNCROC was adopted by the UN in 1989 and defines universal principles and standards for the
status and treatment of children worldwide. New Zealand signed UNCROC in 1990, and ratified
it in 1993, the 131st country to do so. It has now been agreed to by 197 countries, and is
overseen by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
UNCROC is made up of 54 articles that set out a range of human rights standards for the
treatment of children and young people. Four articles capture the general principles
underpinning the Convention. These are:
> all children have the right to protection from discrimination on any grounds
> the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in all matters affecting the
child
> children have the rights to life, survival and development
> all children have the right to an opinion and for that opinion to be heard in all contexts.
Countries which have ratified UNCROC (abbreviated as CRC in UN documents) must take part in
a five yearly reporting cycle. The cycle facilitates on-going discussion between Government and
NGOs and other parties with interests in children’s wellbeing, and requires the Government to
report on commitment and progress to UNCROC issues. This reporting process is led by the
Government’s UNCROC co-ordinating body, the Social Sector Board Deputy Chief Executives
(SSB DCEs). The Government’s UNCROC work programme is led by the Ministry of Social
Development.
The Office’s commitment to UNCROC
Part of your legislative mandate is to raise awareness and understanding of children’s rights
generally, and of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically. You also have a role
to advocate for children’s rights and to monitor how well the Government is implementing the
Convention (section 12 of the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003).
The Office’s approach to carrying out this mandate has evolved over time. Traditionally, the
Children’s Commissioner has taken an active part in the UN reporting cycle, reporting to the UN
Committee on the Rights of the Child with an independent view of New Zealand’s application of
the Convention, and attending sessions of the Committee in person. In the past, the Office has
conducted child rights training to various Government agencies and NGOs, and produced print
and online resources about the Convention, as wel  as advocating for children’s rights both
individually and nationally.
Since 2011 we have undertaken the role of monitoring the Convention by establishing and
convening the UNCROC Monitoring Group (UMG), which consists of representatives from
UNICEF New Zealand, Save the Children, Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa (ACYA) and
the Human Rights Commission. The UMG meets regularly to assess the Government’s progress
on the UNCROC, and has recently formalised its relationship with the SSB DCEs.
The UMG submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in the recent reporting
cycle, and works with the SSB DCEs to monitor progress on the Government’s UNCROC work
programme.
The Office is always looking to advance children’s rights in our broader advocacy work, though
the focus on the Convention is not always explicit. We look for opportunities to advocate for
improved outcomes for children where the need is greatest and where progress on the issues
we have identified would also enhance children’s rights. For example, our current advocacy work
programme is focused on child poverty, children in care, and engaging with children. Al  of
these have strong links to rights guaranteed in the UNCROC (the right to an adequate standard
of living, the right not to be separated from parents unless it is in the child’s best interest and
the right to have an opinion and that opinion to be heard, for example).
Another way we are promoting child rights is by working with other agencies to promote child-
centred approaches, using child impact assessment in policy and encouraging them to engage
directly with children and young people so their views can influence decisions.
12

New Zealand’s 5th Periodic Review
The current cycle (the fifth) started in May 2015 with the submission of the NZ Government
report. An official alternative report from the NGO sector group was submitted in November
2015 by ACYA. ACYA also presented to the UN pre-sessional working group in February of this
year. The Children’s Commissioner also made a submission last November and had an informal
discussion via video link with the UN pre-sessional working group in February.
The UN Committee then prepared a “list of issues” for the Government to respond to (stage 2).
Officials are currently compiling responses that will be sent to the UN by June 2016 (stage 3).
They should give a reasonable indication of the areas the Committee is likely to focus on when it
examines the NZ Government in September 2016 (stage 4).
Minister Anne Tolley will lead the New Zealand delegation to the UN hearings in Geneva in
September. As Children’s Commissioner you will be expected to participate in the hearings.
Formally the Human Rights Commission (HRC) have the right to speak at UN hearings but can
delegate that right to the Children’s Commissioner for the purposes of the UNCROC hearing.
We have allocated $10,000 for travel, accommodation and meals in the 2016/17 budget to
enable one person to attend the UN hearing alongside the wider NGO and HRC delegation.
Following the hearings in September, the UN will issue its next set of Concluding Observations
(stage 5). Then the reporting cycle will begin again.
UN reporting cycle under the human rights treaties (5 yearly for UNCROC)

COMMUNICATIONS
Our communication work aims to ensure the Commissioner is seen as a credible and
authoritative voice for children in New Zealand. Effective and engaging communications is a key
activity and commitment of the Office. We continue to build on good existing relationships with
media and other stakeholders, and have sought out new audiences.
The main activities include:
> media liaison for all enquiries to the Commissioner and Office, and proactive media from the
Commissioner;
> input into strategic planning, to ensure consistent messaging and direction;
> support the Commissioner in development of speeches, statements and presentations;
> website management, including new content development;
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

13

> social media strategy, managing Twitter and Facebook accounts;
> relationship management with communications stakeholders;
> supporting advocacy activities.
An example of communications activity to support the advocacy work was the development and
promotion of the Giving2Kids project. This project was designed with in-house communications
support, including the creation of a new website section.
Communications support for other projects has also been significant, including the development
of the annual Child Poverty Monitor and the State of Care report. These projects were
successful y communicated to our stakeholders and received good coverage by the media,
increasing the effectiveness of this work.
New audiences have been reached with the continued and growing emphasis on social media.
The Office now has an active Twitter account (@occnz) and a strong fol owing on Facebook
(over 3,000 fol owers). Presentations at conferences and other events have also reached new
audiences, including business, local government and religious organisations.
Media interest in the work of the Office, and its position on various child-related issues,
continues to be strong. The Commissioner is frequently approached for comment by the media
and has an excellent relationship with key media outlets and individual journalists.
COMMITMENT TO THE TREATY OF WAITANGI
The Treaty of Waitangi continues to be central to the work of the Office and within our tikanga
framework. One way this is demonstrated is through our tikanga values, which set out how we
do our work.
Our commitment has also been demonstrated through the practice of holding powhiri or mihi
whakatau to welcome new staff and poroporoaki to farewel  staff.
Our monitoring team has focused on continuously developing and extending their cultural
capability, to ensure effective engagement and interaction with mokopuna Māori and whanau,
Māori staff within CYF sites and residences, and Iwi and Māori service providers across the
communities we visit.
Al  staff have been involved in exploration of how we can best uphold the intention of the Treaty
in our work. While this is an ongoing process, tangible actions have been identified by each
team to enhance both their knowledge and how their work and approach can better reflect a
commitment to the Treaty.  Depending on the level of resources available in the Office there is
value in investing further into an ongoing programme of work with the support of external
experts as wel  as renewing and strengthening the Office’s relationship with Mana Whenua.
OUR TIKANGA VALUES
Aroha: Children are sacred beings, they are
Pono: We believe honesty and integrity are
Taonga. They are born perfect and innocent.
key to doing our job well. We always report
They are shaped by those who care for them.
things as we see them and never as how
We always act with compassion and empathy,
others want them to be seen. We stay true to
adapting readily to respond to their needs.
one important thing: we do as we say we will.
Matauranga: Children are our reason for being.  Tika: We are always about the best possible
They are involved, participate and have input
results for children. We empower others to
into things we do. We act from a place of
bring about the best for them. We’re
knowledge. We work from evidence and advise  independent and always speak out for their
others based on the things we learn.
interests. We consider the range of needs we
have to meet, and make every attempt to get
it right.
14

Your Team
As the Children’s Commissioner you wil  be supported by a smal  but
dedicated team of 15 full and part time, permanent and fixed term staff.
THE PEOPLE ON YOUR STAFF WILL BE YOUR GREATEST ASSET
The Office staff are dedicated, professional, and bring an in depth knowledge of child wel being
and of the key issues facing children in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
At the start of the current Commissioner’s term the Office had a flat structure and the work
programme was based around staff’s areas of expertise rather than being aligned to an overall
strategic direction. In 2013 the Office was restructured to put in place clearer lines of
accountability and to ensure that the work being undertaken across the Office was aligned to
the Commissioner’s priorities.
In late 2014 the Auckland Office was closed and the two FTE positions based there were
transferred to the Wellington Office. The change served to consolidate the teams and ensure
alignment across al  of our work. While there was some concern from the children’s rights sector
about the loss of the Auckland office the change has gone smoothly and relationships have
been managed effectively from Wellington.
Other changes over the past three years have included putting in place a Personal Development
Planning process with managers required to undertake regular reviews and end of year
assessments with al  staff. A Lominger based competency framework was developed for the
Office outlining the core competencies expected for advisory and management staff.
Recruitment processes were improved to ensure that people could demonstrate that they met
the standards required by the Office.
THE OFFICE IS DIVIDED INTO THREE TEAMS
One of the key changes to the office since 2013 has included the establishment of a
management team to lead the 3 core functions of the Office – Advocacy, Monitoring, and
Corporate functions. In brief, the:
> Advocacy team supports the Commissioner’s statutory function to advocate on topics related
to children’s interests, rights or welfare, the work to monitor the implementation of UNCROC,
co-ordinate the UNCROC Monitoring Group and the statutory requirement to engage and
consult with children and young people on issues that impact on them.
> Monitoring team supports the Commissioner’s statutory monitoring and investigations
function and undertake the regular monitoring of Child, Youth and Family sites and
residences, support the Commissioner in his role in the CYF Residence Grievance Panels and
undertake investigations of CYF practice if required.
> Corporate team manage al  of the reporting and business functions of the office including
administrative functions, Facilities, HR, Payroll, Accounts, Budgets, quarterly reporting,
preparation of the Statement of Intent, Statement of Performance Expectations and Annual
Report, managing the audit processes, contracts for services and procurement processes.
Each team has a manager who reports directly to you. The Communication function sits across
all these activities, but is most closely aligned to the advocacy team. The Principal Advisor
(Communications and Media) reports directly to you.
Due to ongoing budget constraints the Office has had to reduce contracted and permanent
staffing levels. As a result, each team is small and each of the three managers are required to
undertake both team management tasks as wel  as deliver core work in their team. Each
manager is also responsible for holding key stakeholder relationships on behalf of the Office in
their area of responsibility. Staff are remunerated in line with comparable public sector agencies.
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

15

Base pay has not been increased since 2013, but in 2015 staff received a one off payment of 1%
of their salary, to acknowledge their hard work and commitment to the Office.
The organisational chart below indicates where they fit within the organization, their lines of
accountability, their FTE hours per week, and also indicates which staff members are on a fixed
term. In January 2016, one permanent full-time FTE vacancy was split into two 0.6 FTE fixed-term
appointments (one for child and engagement and one for monitoring) to take into account the
uncertainty about the future role and functions of the Office. Once there is greater certainty
regarding future priorities, we would advise switching these positions to permanent roles.
ORGANISATIONAL CHART AS AT 1 JULY 2016
Children's  Commissioner
1.0 FTE
Donna Provoost
Liz Kinley
Patrick Labotsky
Anna Santos
Advocacy Manager
Monitoring & Investigations
Corporate Services Manager
Principal Communications Advisor
1.0 FTE
Manager 0.9 FTE
1.0 FTE
0.8 FTE
Holly Walker
Dr Sarah Hayward
Carina Owen
Principal Advisor
Principal Advisor
Business Support Advisor
Advisor  0.9 FTE
1.0 FTE
0.8 FTE
Dr Kathleen Logan
Brian Gardner
Karen McKechnie
Senior Advisor
Senior Advisor
EA/Administrator
0.9FTE
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE
Emma Hope
Senior Advisor, Children & Youth
Awhina Buchanan
Contracted support:
Voice
Senior Advisor
Megan Nixon
Fixed Term to June 2017
1.0 FTE
Finance Support
0.6 FTE
Alister Newton
Karen Palliser
Contracted support:
Advisor
Advisor
Deloitte
Fixed Term to June 2017
Fixed Term to June 2017
Management Accountancy Services
1.0 FTE
0.6 FTE
Maggie Wear
Advisor
Child's Rights Line
0.725 FTE
.

16

STAFF BIOGRAPHIES
A brief biography for each of the staff in the Office by team is outlined below.

ADVOCACY TEAM
Donna Provoost – Advocacy Manager
Donna manages the 5 person advocacy team. This includes providing management and
intellectual leadership to the team to ensure the Office fulfills its legislative mandate to advocate
issues related to the welfare and wellbeing of children, our obligation under the UNCROC, and
consultation with children. Key areas of advocacy include children’s rights, poverty, health,
education, care and protection, and legal issues. The team works closely with a range of
stakeholders including government, NGOs, academics, philanthropic organizations and
businesses.
Donna has a Masters in Economics and has over fifteen years of experience as a researcher,
policy analyst and manager. She joined the Office in April 2012 as a Principal Advisor leading the
secretariat to the Expert Advisory Group on solutions to child poverty. She was appointed as
Manager of the advocacy team in 2013. She has experience working across the NZ social sector,
with past roles including Senior Economist at Ministry of Science and Innovation; Strategic Policy
Manager at the Ministry of Justice, and Senior Advisor at the Ministry of Education.
Prior to moving to New Zealand in 2004, Donna was a partner in a private consulting firm,
worked in the Canadian public sector and lectured in economics at Mount Saint Vincent
University.
Holly Walker – Principal Advisor (Advocacy)
Holly joined the advocacy team in November 2014. She provides child-centred advice on a
range of topics, leads the Office’s work on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child and associated processes, is a specialist writer, and provides peer review and leadership to
the advocacy team and wider office. In 2015, Hol y led the writing of our first annual State of
Care report.
Before joining the Office, Hol y was a Member of Parliament from 2011-14, and has previously
worked as a political advisor, Treaty Settlements negotiator, writer and editor. She has a Masters
in Development Studies from Oxford University (completed on a Rhodes Scholarship in 2009),
and is knowledgeable about inequality, housing, child rights and literature.
Dr Kathleen Logan – Senior Advisor (Advocacy)
Kathleen came to the Office in December 2013. Her focus is on the research and evidence base
that supports the Commissioner’s advocacy role. She maintains relationships across government
agencies such as the Ministries of Health, Education, and Social Development, to ensure children
are considered properly during policy development. In addition, she engages with academic and
government researchers, and agencies such as Statistics New Zealand, to monitor the evidence
base relating to children. These information sources are used for submissions to government on
policy and legislative processes.
In April 2015, Kathleen was appointed by the Minister of Health for a term of three years to the
ACART, as the Children’s Commissioner’s representative to advocate for the interests of children
born from assisted reproduction (e.g. in-vitro fertilisation).
Kathleen has experience from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (now MBIE) in
government science strategy and investment policy, as well as experience in science advocacy
with the Royal Society of New Zealand. Prior to this she was a research scientist for over a
dozen years, in the fields of brain anatomy and behaviour, reproductive biology, reproductive
technology, physiology and genetics.
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

17

Emma Hope – Senior Advisor (Child and Youth Voice)
Emma recently joined the Office in January 2016 as a Senior Advisor with the Advocacy team,
specialising in engaging with children and young people about the issues that impact on their
everyday lives. Her role involves building a network of schools to participate in the Voices
Project, designing on-line surveys for children and young people, holding focus groups with
young people, and analyzing and reporting on al  results.
Emma has worked in a range of child focused roles at Wellington City Council, Taranaki District
Health Board’s Health Promotion Unit and The Red Cross since completing a Bachelor of
Science (Health Promotion) degree in Perth, Western Australia, in 2004. She works at the Office
on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Alister Newton– Advisor
Alister provides support across al  areas of the Office – monitoring, advocacy, communications
and corporate functions. Alister first started at the Office at the end of 2013 after an OE year
teaching English in France. Before that he completed an honours degree in International
Relations, and worked as a researcher on the secretariat for the EAG child poverty project with
the office in 2012. Alister recently finished a Post Graduate Diploma in Communications.
In the advocacy team Alister mainly undertakes research and writing for select committee
reports, and helps with editing other team members’ work. The role also includes general
correspondence with the public and other agencies, OIA responses and quarterly / annual
reports. In his communications work he helps coordinate the Child Poverty Monitor and co-
manages our social media and website platforms.
Maggie Wear – Child’s Rights Advisor (Advocacy)
Maggie manages calls to our Child Rights Line and has held this position since 2012. The line
receives a wide variety of queries from cal ers (primarily parents rather than children themselves)
throughout the country, primarily involving issues with Child Youth and Family and Education.
The line also receives calls on legal matters, health and media issues. Education related issues
are referred to a specialist service run by the Wellington Community Law Centre.
Maggie has a social work background which assists her to manage the inquiries that this Office
receives. She works Monday to Thursday, and the line is available between 9am to 5pm on those
days.

MONITORING AND INVESTIGATIONS TEAM
Liz Kinley – Manager Monitoring and Investigations
Liz joined the Office in 2013. She has the responsibility for delivering the Commissioner’s
monitoring of CYF policies and practices. Her work includes: national and local relationship
management with relevant CYF, government, iwi and community stakeholders; team
management; oversight of the scoping, design, planning, fieldwork, analysis, reporting and
follow-up for each monitoring review; management of specific case related investigations; and,
oversight of the support to the Commissioner on the Grievance Panel Stakeholder Committee.
Liz has over thirty years social work practice, management and leadership experience working in
child and family centred social services within both statutory and community agencies. She has
led the design of a range of strategies, systems, interventions, tools and resources that have
assisted organisations, professionals, families and communities to protect children. A registered
social worker, Liz has maintained a small professional supervision and management coaching
practice alongside her work for the Office. She works nine days a fortnight.
Dr Sarah Hayward – Principal Advisor (Monitoring and Investigations)
Sarah works as a Principal Advisor in the monitoring team and is responsible for monitoring CYF
sites and residences to improve policy and practice for vulnerable children and their families and
whānau. She joined the Office in 2013. Prior to this, she worked in principal advisor and
18

management roles at the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice, where she led policy and
service development in the areas of child and youth mental health, primary mental health care,
and addressing the drivers of crime.
Sarah is also an experienced child and family psychologist and runs a small private practice in
Wellington and offers supervision to psychology students. She specialises in working with all
parents, step-parents, foster parents and couples to strengthen their relationships with their
children and each other, and to support children to develop to their potential. Prior to moving
to New Zealand in 2005, she worked as a therapist and researcher for the Parenting and Family
Support Centre in Brisbane for over 10 years and is an accredited trainer for Triple P-Positive
Parenting Program. She has also completed training in emotionally focused couples therapy.
Brian Gardner – Senior Advisor (Monitoring and Investigations)
Brian has over twenty years’ social work experience, including management, policy and
leadership roles at local and national level with community and government agencies. His areas
of practice experience include adult mental health, children, young people and family mental
health, and family violence prevention. Prior to joining the Office he worked as a Senior Advisor
in the Ministry of Social Development’s Family Violence Unit.
As a Senior Advisor in the monitoring and investigation team Brian focuses on monitoring,
analyzing and reporting on the practices and processes of CYF, to promote quality
improvements in the services provided to children, young people, families and whānau. He
began work at the Office in 2013, taking up the role permanently in 2014.
Awhina Buchanan– Senior Advisor (Monitoring and Investigations)
Awhina Buchanan has worked in the office for three years. In her initial role she provided advice
across the Office about ways to engage with children and young people. She was responsible
for coordinating the Office’s Young People’s Advisory Group and in 2015 she was seconded into
the Expert Advisory Panel’s secretariat to facilitate the Minister for Social Development’s Youth
Advisory Panel. She supported the development of the Children and Young People’s Voices
Project and the Listening2Kids resource on the Office’s website.
Awhina was appointed to her current role within the Monitoring and Investigations team in
December 2015. She is one of the team members responsible for overseeing the grievance
process for CYF residences on behalf of the Children’s Commissioner. She also monitors sites
and residences and prepares reports to CYF. She brings a child-centred approach to her
monitoring role and has developed a number of resources to support the Office’s engagement
with children and young people.
Karen Palliser – Advisor (Monitoring and Investigations)
Karen is a registered social worker and her background is predominately in statutory social
work. She has worked in various roles for CYF over the last 10 years including frontline social
work, child specialist witness interviewing, as an after-hours intake social worker at the National
Contact Centre and as the CYF representative on the Family Safety Team.
Karen is the newest staff member, joining the Office in .January.

CORPORATE SERVICES TEAM
Patrick Labotsky – Corporate Services Manager
Patrick has been with the Office since October 2013. He is responsible for all the corporate
functions across the Office and is part of the Management Team. The role includes
responsibilities for managing the development of the strategic direction and business plan
under the direction of the Commissioner, including the oversight and development of all
accountability documents. He manages the reporting requirements associated with the
machinery of government and service contracts, as wel  as managing the financial and physical
resources of the Office. He also provides administrative and related business support services
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

19

for the Commissioner and senior staff, and supervises two staff members: the Business Advisor
and Personal Assistant/Administrator to the Commissioner.
Patrick worked as a Business Manager in various Departments in the New Zealand public sector
in the 6 years before joining the Office. Prior to that, he was a Deputy Director in the Gauteng
Health Services in South Africa, managing the office of the Chief Executive.
Carina Owen – Business Support Advisor
Carina joined the Office in January 2012 as the PA/Administrator to the Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner. In July 2015 she became the Business Support Advisor responsible for
co-ordinating and administering Office wide systems, tools and processes to support best
practice in a wide range of corporate areas and responsibilities and contribute to the overall
performance of the Office. This includes finance, human resources and payrol , procurement,
commission and contracts, reporting, project management and business continuity.
Previously Carina has worked as an Executive Assistant with extensive experience in all
administrative and secretarial tasks. She has held positions in the wool, banking, entertainment
and Government sectors in Wellington and in London.
Karen McKechnie – Executive Assistant/Administrator
Karen began working for the Children’s Commissioner’s Office in 2000. Her work over this
period has included taking a lead role in administrative support of the Office, liaising with
facilities management, and maintaining the Reception Desk. In January 2015, Karen shifted to
take up the role of EA to both the former Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
Prior to coming to the Office Karen worked for fifteen years at Parliament. She commenced
working in the Opposition Whips Office for the Chief Whip, Don McKinnon. Two years later she
was seconded to the National Party Research Unit, then to work for the Rt. Hon Don McKinnon
in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office.
Karen is the longest standing member of the Office, and holds a wealth of corporate history and
insights.
Anna Santos – Principal Advisor (Communications and Media)
Anna has worked in public sector communications roles for over ten years in New Zealand and
the United Kingdom. This includes roles as a senior media communications advisor for the NZ
Department of Labour (with a focus on immigration policy and marketing) and a press officer
for the UK Department for Transport. Prior to the move to communications she was a producer
for local television and radio in her hometown of Christchurch.
Starting at the Office in 2009 as a contractor, Anna took a permanent role in May 2010. Her role
in the Office is to manage all communications functions but also to provide wider strategic
advice to the Commissioner. She has an advisory role to the management team and participates
in management strategy meetings and planning days.
Anna’s responsibility is to ensure the work of the Commissioner and the Office is well
communicated to stakeholders, media and the wider community. This is a broad role that
encompasses strategic planning, media liaison, internal communications, website management,
social media strategy and relationship management. She also updates the website, posts
regularly on four social media accounts, creates online newsletters and designs visual material
for projects.

20

PART 2: BUILDING ON OUR PAST
You are the seventh Children’s Commissioner. This section provides
an overview of the changing focus and priorities of past
Commissioners. This history has shaped the political, sector and
public expectations of this role, and also offers some insights for
you to consider as you lead the office through this period of
change.

Legislation
The role of the Commissioner for Children was established as part of the 1989 Children, Young
Persons, and Their Families Act (CYP&F Act). The primary purpose for the role was to be an
accountability mechanism for the new CYP Service. Provisions for the Commissioner were added
to the Bill at a very late stage, as a way to help address concerns that the newly formed CYPS
gave insufficient weight to professional accountability and individual children’s welfare, as it
made the significant move toward more family responsibility.
The functions of the Commissioner set out in the 1989 Act were to:
> Investigate any decision or recommendation made with regard to the CYPF Act.
> Monitor and assess the policies and practices of the Department and encourage polices and
services within it which promoted the welfare of children and young persons.
> Undertake and promote research.
> Receive and invite representations from the public on any matter.
> Increase public awareness.
> Advise the Minister on any matter relating to the administration of the Act.
UNCROC was not part of this legislation - it had only just been adopted by the UN in 1989, and
was not ratified by NZ until 1993.
The 2003 Act re-enacted the functions of 1989 Act with regard to CYP&F, but established a
stand-alone statutory basis for the Commissioner, explicitly focused on UNCROC which was
included as a schedule in the Act. The new Act expanded the Commissioner’s mandate to
advocate for children in a wide range of situations and added the role of promoting their
participation in decision making.
The current Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 is included in the Government’s legislative
change programme, and amendments could be introduced in October 2016 as part of the Child,
Youth and Family transformation. Some of the suggestions and rationale from past changes
may be useful in shaping your advice. A discussion of the origins and influences on the 2003
Act, including cal s for increased autonomy of the role, is included in Appendix 1.
Appendix 2 is a timeline showing various key events, covering Commissioners’ terms,
Governments, Ministers, UNCROC reporting cycle and various relevant events. Personal
circumstances and administrative issues have meant that Commissioner’s terms have not
necessarily been the standard five years and do not synchronise with the UN reporting cycle.
Likewise, political change, especially after the introduction of MMP, have often meant that
Commissioners have spent limited time working with the Government or Minister by whom they
were appointed and more with their successors.
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

21

Themes and achievements
Each Children’s Commissioner has brought different strengths to the role,
and has had different challenges and priorities for their term.
FOCUS AND ACHIEVEMENT OF PAST COMMISSIONERS
Features of the work undertaken by previous Commissioners may provide some insight into the
chal enges you face in setting the Office’s work programme for your term.
John Barrington’s 2004 book A Voice for Children provides a detailed account of the Office and
the priorities and achievements of the first three Commissioners, beginning in 1989 through to
2003. Following this in 2003 the new, UNCROC focused Act was passed, and three other
Commissioners have served terms. To bring you up to date on the work of the subsequent
Commissioners, Appendix 3 includes summary lists of the priorities and actions of the
Commissioners from 2003 to 2016, based on Annual Reports.
With regard to working style and achievements, there is clearly an interaction between the
personality and background of the Commissioner, priorities and polices of the Government of
the day, and trends and high profile events. Notably, several times the violent death of a child
was a watershed moment which has led to significant changes to CYF structure and practice.
It is possible to characterise the sequence of Commissioners as alternating between an “insider”,
system focused style and a more public facing, advocacy approach. Behind the scenes, research
work and publications have been a constant focus for the Office, but the level of public presence
and outreach has varied, depending on the incumbent Commissioner’s personality and
background. For example Cindy Kiro often appeared on morning magazine-style television
shows, while other Commissioners have stayed with more formal communication channels.
The fol owing table sets out the key features of each Commissioner’s term (the first three are
summarised from Barrington and the last three from the material compiled in Appendix 3).

Commissioner
Key features of the term
Dr Ian Hassall
Child health; Children’s legal rights, CYPS monitoring – established
Paediatrician
frameworks and improved  data collection systems, more “insider”
(1989-1994)
approach with government agencies.
Laurie O’Reilly
Family Court Lawyer,
Child’s Legal Rights in education and justice systems; public criticism
Foster parent, worked
of and individual advocacy with Police, Family and Criminal Courts,
with “street kids”
schools and CYPS; increased the  public  focus  –  big increase in
inquiry line calls.
(1994-1997)
Roger McClay
“Anti-smacking”  –  s.59 repeal; bul ying; building NGO and
Teacher and Politician
Parliamentary alliances –  “Littlies Lobby”; more policy focus and
engagement in policy development process; community focus  with
(1998-2003)
regional training sessions; set up of Youth Reference Group.
Dr Cindy Kiro
Family  violence;  “Anti-smacking” section 59 repeal; child  poverty;
Academic, social work,
international linkages, early  intervention programme –  outcome
community and Māori
focused; established  monitoring framework for CYFS;  opened
development
Auckland Office 2005 (5 FTEs at largest);  promoted  children’s
(2003-2008)
interests in the Auckland Local Government review.
22

Dr John Angus
Shorter period – initially appointed for 6 months, this was extended
Social Worker, Social
twice, to a total of 2 years 3 months. “Insider” style; review of CYF;
Policy Advisor
UNCROC Report; continuation of research-style  publications;
(2009-2010)
Auckland Office decreased to 2 FTEs.
Dr Russell Wills
Part-time (with Deputy to support); child  poverty;  systematic
Paediatrician
monitoring of CYF; elevated children’s  voices;  championed
Government’s Children’s Action Plan;  ‘fit for purpose changes’ to
(2011-2016)
engaging with children, Guidelines for food in schools programmes,
revamping  the website, increased  social media and reduced
hardcopy resources; Auckland Office closed.

SHIFTS IN MAJOR THEMES AND ACTIVITIES
Another way to consider the changing priorities of the Commissioner is to look at trends in
themes and activities. Over the life of the Office, activities which have increased include:
> Focus on influencing policy rather than critiquing practise.
> Increasing NGO, philanthropic and private sector al iances, including funding and leverage of
effort (for example, JR Mackenzie Trust support of the Child Poverty Monitor, and pro-bono
and in-kind support of the Experts Advisory Group on Child Poverty)
> Increasing advocacy for children’s wel being with regard to a range of government services
beyond social welfare services. (Commissioner O’Reilly was particularly controversial with
schools and the Ministry of Education concerning pupils’ legal rights.)
> Systematic monitoring of CYFS services rather than visits by the Commissioner and Chief
Youth Court and Family Court Judges, and on-going evolution of reporting systems.
> Increasing development of management systems within the Office, with growing expectations,
accountabilities, and compliance costs.
Many activities have declined as they have become outmoded, or have been picked up by other
agencies. For example:
> Many areas of children’s legal rights of concern to earlier Commissioners, e.g. protection from
il egal searches, are now more widely understood and respected, and/or covered by formal
complaints processes within agencies.
> “Hitting Children” – legislative campaigns over corporal punishment in schools and by parents
(s. 59) ended successful y, with real shifts in social attitudes.
Some activities have been cut in order to manage within available funding and others have been
stopped to focus on areas of greater impact.
> Young Peoples Reference Group set up in 2002; became the Young Peoples Advisory Group,
then discontinued in 2014 and replaced by Children’s Voices programme (a survey model).
The Youth Panel which was set up to contribute to the CYF review illustrates the possibility of
pulling together ad hoc groups for consultation and information.
> Hosting of events: over time, the Commissioner has played leading roles in Children’s Day;
Hoodie Day; Children’s Symposiums; and the Littlies Lobby (Parliamentary breakfasts,
newsletters, website run jointly with Plunket from 2003 till 2010). Such events are resource
intensive and have been taken up by other agencies or come to an end.
> Community / regional training sessions on children’s rights. Two-day workshops were started
in August 2000 with Ministry of Education (MoE) funding. They ended in 2009, as MoE
funding shifted to other approaches.
> Phone advice service on education issues run by Wel ington Community Law Centre was
initial y funded by the Office, and then picked up by MoE.
> Investigations focused on individual cases have declined in favour of systematic reviews, and
encouraging agencies to set up their own complaints resolution processes.
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

23

> Reviews of children’s deaths and processing of child death notifications. These are now
managed within the health system.
> Published Resources – pamphlets and the quarterly journal Children which were decreasingly
cost effective were replaced by online resources (2012/13). Some still popular items are now
produced by the agencies that made most use of them.
> An Auckland Office was opened and contributed to various regional and local government
issues in 2005, but reduced in size, and eventually closed in 2012, due to changing demands
and priorities, and budget constraints.
STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE
Summing up what can be built on from the past, it is clear that over time Commissioners’ roles
and actions have encompassed contrasting priorities and approaches. These can be seen as
balancing over time, and being complementary rather than contrary to each other.
UNCROC focuses on a fundamental framework of Children’s Rights, but on-going advocacy has
often been most effective when promoted in terms of improving children’s outcomes. The
Commissioner has a role to guard the interests of all children, as wel  as a particular mandate for
children in the care of the state, and other vulnerable children. The coverage of broad systemic
issues is informed by knowledge derived from specific investigations and monitoring.
At different times Commissioners have variously emphasised monitoring or advocacy;
independence or influence; and public leadership versus “insider” lobbying. The Office also
serves as an interface between the Government sector and the community and NGOs.
There is an inherent tension in the Commissioner’s role as an independent advocate funded by
Government. Al  Commissioners have experienced this tension to some degree, and have
managed it in a number of ways. Approaches have included:
> being non-partisan;
> being constructive rather than adversarial;
> combining sound evidence and good communications;
> building relationships in key agencies; and
> managing a broad constituency of support with other advocacy groups, sector partners and
the general public.
The role of Children’s Commissioner provides a unique position, precariously straddling the
fence between government and civil society. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner can
engage with community stakeholders without the stigma faced by many government
organisations, and with agencies as peers operating under the Public Sector Code of Conduct.
The broad mandate of the Office means you can maintain an overal  view on issues impacting
children, without being limited to particular elements of wellbeing or institutional boundaries.
And the statutory mandate to promote UNCROC gives the Commissioner a distinct and
internationally recognised reference point for assessing children’s interests and rights.
These are al  factors for you to consider as you take up your role as Commissioner, and establish
the work programme for the Office for your term. While the current environment and the
significant transformation of CYF are major factors that will influence your choices, there is also
much to learn from the efforts of and challenges faced by your predecessors.

24

PART 3: STRATEGIC CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR TERM
You are taking up this role in a very exciting time. This section
outlines some of the chal enges and opportunities you can expect
to face in the next two years.
This is an exciting time
There is increasing interest in an investment approach to the social sector, with a
particular concern for children. The pending transformations to the care and
protection and youth justice systems mean you can have an impact on the design and
implementation of system-wide change, as well as the evolving role of the Children’s
Commissioner.
The level of interest in improving outcomes for children has never been higher. Government
agencies are being encouraged to collaborate to identify issues across the health, education,
social welfare, and justice sectors that are leading to poor outcomes in childhood and later in
life. There is a particular focus on targeted interventions for vulnerable children. There is also a
wider constituency of concern for children’s issues, with more community, business and
philanthropic organizations signaling they are willing to be part of the solutions.
The Office enjoys a strong reputation with its stakeholders. This is evidenced in the Office’s
stakeholder survey results included in Appendix 4. We are seen as an organization that delivers
results even with limited resources. Although we are smal , we are also experienced, agile and
adaptive.
While the Office is well-placed to play a role in improving children’s outcomes and ensuring
their rights are upheld, there are some chal enges you need to consider before determining
your strategic priorities.

Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

25

There are some challenges
The small size of the Office and the responsive nature of some of the work
present some chal enges to manage through.
THE SIZE OF THE OFFICE PRESENTS SOME RISKS
The size of the Office means that there is a level of critical person dependency that you need to
be aware of. While this issue is being actively managed, without further resourcing ongoing
focus and management is required. The critical person dependency lies across the Office. Some
issues in each team are outlined here.
Corporate Team
Critical person dependency is a risk in the Corporate Team with the Office very reliant on the
Corporate Services Manager to drive the core functions of the Office including payroll, reporting
and finance. While we have an external accountant and a contracted part-time accounts person
who supports the processing of our accounts, it is important that there is a second person in the
Office capable of managing these tasks. This risk has been reduced by redeploying a staff
member into the role of business support advisor and having the Advocacy Manager provide
backup for oversight of the online accounting system.
Monitoring Team
The Monitoring Team is heavily reliant on all staff being available to deliver on the monitoring
work programme. Even short disruptions in staffing (arising from staff turnover, leave or il ness)
chal enge the team’s ability to deliver and require considerable commitment on the part of team
members to complete their work. The Manager of the team currently does field work with her
staff as they develop their capability, but also to ensure there is sufficient staffing to undertake
this work. Ideally, the Manager would be responsible for oversight and co-ordination and would
not undertake the amount of fieldwork she currently does.
More resources for the team would alleviate this over time, and reduce the critical person
dependency and delivery risk within this function. However additional support would be
required to build up the specialist skills of any new staff to undertake the sensitive field work
and interviewing required. It will be critical to maintain a strong and stable monitoring team as
the foundation for any enhancement in the monitoring function.
Advocacy Team
The Advocacy Team has a very broad scope to its work programme, and its capability relies on
the diverse experience and backgrounds of the team members. Their institutional knowledge
and wide contacts are vital to providing rapid and quality responses to unexpected demands, as
well as maintaining the on-going quality of the advocacy material, communications and Child’s
Rights Line services expected of the Office. Each person in the team brings specialist skil s.
The Advocacy Team led the analysis and writing to translate the monitoring reports into the first
aggregate annual public report, the State of Care 2015, and continues to lead the production of
State of Care 2016. The manager also provides back-up oversight for the accounting system.
These responsibilities reduce capacity for advocacy work and ideally would be undertaken by
the Monitoring and Business Teams respectively.
PRE-COMMITTED WORK PUTS SOME LIMITATION ON THE WORK PROGRAMME
Undertaking all the work required to ensure we are legislatively compliant means there is limited
resource remaining to work on new priorities.
The Advocacy Team is already committed to some major pieces of work, including:
26

> Briefings for the UNCROC Hearings (September 2016)
> Child and Youth Voices Project surveys in schools (June-December 2016)
> Minister’s Youth Advice on Care System (YACS) Project (June-March 2017)
> Child Poverty Monitor 2016 release (December 2016)
In addition, the Team undertakes reactive work based on what relevant Select Committee
processes or other formal reviews come up. Within the next six months, we anticipate that the
fol owing work wil need a response from the Advocacy Team:
> Select Committee hearings for significant amendments to the Education Act (September tbc)
> Review of decile funding of the education system (June tbc)
> Healthy Homes Bill at Select Committee (tbc)
There will be significant opportunities arising from the CYF Transformations. These are outlined
in the following section, but will likely require formal responses for:
> Phase 1 changes to the CFY&P Act at Select Committee (June tbc)
> Phase 2 changes to the CFY&P Act at Select Committee (October tbc)
> Changes to the Children’s Commissioner Act at Select Committee (October tbc)
The Monitoring Team has an agreed work programme set each year. This includes one or more
thematic reviews and monitoring of CP and YJ residences. There is a short window of
opportunity now to influence the topic for the thematic reviews for 2016-17. Possible topics are
being identified to help support current transformation of CYF, and these will be discussed with
you.

Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

27

There are opportunities to make a real
difference for children
There are some clear opportunities arising from current government
activities. You and the Office have an obvious role in providing expert input
and advice to the CYF transformation, and related changes in the youth
justice area. There are also some potential opportunities where the Office
could have an impact to improve children’s outcomes building on our
current wider work.
CYF TRANSFORMATIONS
The pending transformation of CYF offers many opportunities for shaping better future systems
for children and young people in the care and justice systems. You and this Office have a
comprehensive statutory responsibility to ensure that anything done under the auspices of the
current CYP&F act promotes the welfare of children and young people. The Office has unique
access to children in state care as wel  as frontline social work staff, and understanding of their
perspectives and circumstances. The value of the work undertaken by the Office to fulfil these
responsibilities was recognised by the EAP in the recommendation to look at further resourcing
for the Office for monitoring the system, and potential y to expand our functions.
However the size and scale of the transformations means that some strategic choices will have
to be made about which elements you and the Office wil  have the capacity and capability
engage with.
In response to the report MSD has established two broad programmes of work. The first work
stream will deliver the policy and legislative changes (as signaled in ‘Cabinet Paper 2’ that was
released with the EAP report in April). The second programme of work is the establishment of a
transformation team within MSD to lead the work to implement a new agency and operating
model by April 2017.
We have begun discussions with the head of the
transformation programme. Once the work
CYF transformation related policy and legislative topics
streams are established and once more detailed
we believe the Office should actively engage on include:
information is available, we can work with you
> lifting the age for youth offenders from 17 to 18 years
to identify those areas where the Office can be
> the functions of the advocacy support service for
most effective.
children in the care system, and how it links to
Additionally, we have begun work to ensure the
systematic advocacy, complaints and monitoring
new YACS that we are to convene on behalf of
> roles and functions of the Children’s Commissioner
the Minister will be connected to the
> creation of National Care Standards
appropriate work streams.

There will also be opportunities to contribute to a range
You will need to consider the level and extent of
of other policy areas, as wel  as to provide a submission
the Office’s involvement and investment in the
on the two Bil s, scheduled for introduction in July and
transformation process and how this would be
October 2016 respectively.
best achieved from within current resourcing
levels and in light of the Office’s core work

programme.
STRENGTHENED MONITORING FUNCTION
The EAP report notes the value of multiple levels of independent monitoring which will hold to
account both the future department and the wider care and protection and youth justice
systems. The report supports a continuation of the Office’s statutory role to monitor and
28

provide independent reporting on the performance of the statutory system. It also proposes
that the focus of the Office’s monitoring function be broadened, recognising that this would
need to be supported by a review of the Office’s resourcing.
The transformation of the care and protection and youth justice systems announced by
Government in response to the EAPs report present a number of chal enges for the Office. We
are preparing separate advice for you on how the monitoring function of the Office could be
strengthened to increase its effectiveness and contribute more towards achieving improved
outcomes from the child and protection and youth justice systems. This advice will include a
range of options from a consolidated status quo to a future monitoring function which would
more actively support the child-centred, col aborative operating model that the Government is
pursuing.
Our advice will also include an assessment of the investment (e.g. people, skil s, resources,
funding) and other possible changes (e.g. policy or legislative change) needed to successfully
deliver the options presented. A broad sense of timing and critical dependencies wil  also be
provided.
This advice is intended as an input to your thinking prior to your wider engagement with the
Minister and other key stakeholders.
YOUTH CRIME AND JUSTICE
Youth crime and justice issues are an obvious area of opportunity, given your interests and
expertise, and the close linkages of this area with the care and protection system, and CYF
transformation. We have had some involvement with youth crime and justice from our
monitoring activities and from involvement in policy activities such as the Youth Crime Action
Plan.
We look forward to addressing gaps and issues you have identified in the youth crime and
justice areas.
BUILDING ON OUR VOICES PROJECT TO INCREASE ENGAGEMENT WITH YOUNG PEOPLE
There is a need for a specialty service to engage with children and young people in New
Zealand.
A fundamental component of UNCROC is enabling children to speak for themselves. Children
have insights that society will gain from, and that will improve the effectiveness of policy, and
reduce unintended consequences.
The Office has considerable knowledge and expertise on how to engage effectively with
children. Our children’s Voices Project has developed online survey and focus group
mechanisms to support our own advocacy work. We are often asked for advice on how to “find”
or “talk to” young people by agencies.
There is an opportunity for us to expand our Voices Project and provide child and youth
engagement services to other agencies on a cost-recovery basis. This conduit for other agencies
to engage with children would mean that children have a greater say in decisions that affect
them, and policy development and service design processes are improved.
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSIDER
There are many opportunities to improve the wel being of children. Choosing what issues to
prioritise and how to utilize the resources available to you will be an ongoing challenge.
Some ideas to consider are outlined here. We can work with you to further refine the scope any
area of interest.
Children with disabilities: There is a case to be made that greater advocacy focus is needed to
address issues for children with disabilities. These children are disproportionately represented
Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

29

statutory care and in poverty statistics. They also face a range of health and education
chal enges, and often lack the ability or opportunity to speak for themselves.
There is a comprehensive disability strategy in place, and there are organizations that advocate
for people with disabilities. Unfortunately, children with disabilities are often ‘lost’ in the overall
picture. There may be an opportunity to partner with the disability sector to amplify the
messages and support system improvements for children with disabilities.
Issues in education: Educational achievement is fundamental for children to achieve their
potential. There are many areas within the education sector that should be improved, and focus
and advocacy on one or more of these issues may be what is needed to bring about some
change. These issues include (but are not limited to):
> poor educational outcomes for children in State care;
> difficulties accessing appropriate supports for children with disabilities, and the inequitable
treatment between children with diagnosed mental il ness or disability and those with a range
of spectrum disorders and behavioural issues;
> failure or unwillingness of local schools to provide places for children with complex disabilities
or behaviour needs;
> ongoing involvement in the Bullying Prevention Advisory Group and Online Safety Advisory
group
> lack of ‘tribunal’ type mediation for parents and students when they cannot resolve issues with
their local Board of Trustees.
Doing better for Māori children: Māori children and whānau experience deeply entrenched
inequity that is evident across the board, including in health, justice, employment, housing,
education and social outcomes. This persistent disadvantage is unacceptable. We need culturally
relevant responses to the complex socio-economic factors facing many Māori whānau and
children.
The issues are daunting. We already take steps across both monitoring and advocacy to give
attention to the issues facing Māori children. And as an Office, we have been exploring of how
we can best uphold the intention of the Treaty in our work. We welcome discussions with you
on this work.
Children living in hardship: Growing up in low income and material hardship is a powerful
driver of a range of poor outcomes for children in New Zealand. While we have worked on some
aspects of this issue, there is much more that could be done.
We can discuss with you the strengths of the existing teams, the point of difference we can
bring to different areas, and the level of impact we might be able to have alongside other
stakeholders.

30

PART 4: FUTHER BRIEFINGS
We will provide further detail on specific elements of the Office and
the work programme as required.
DECISIONS YOU WILL NEED TO MAKE NOW
We will provide you with further briefings on decisions you need to make before or
during your first 30 days as Commissioner. This will include a full briefing on the
budget position and operational requirements, decisions on levels of delegation to
your Managers and a copy of the detailed work programme across the Office.
Several key planning and accountability agreements for the new financial year are well
underway, as required by statutory timetables, and we wil  brief you on these. An annual
Statement of Performance Expectations (SPE) for 2016/17 has been drafted, and following
consultation with the Ministry of Social Development (as our Crown Agency monitor) and Audit
New Zealand, the SPE is now with the Minister for her agreement and sign-off. The Office has
received Ministerial agreement to delay updating the Statement of Intent so you can have the
opportunity to refresh that document by June 2017 for the following 4 years.
The Monitoring Team are currently confirming their monitoring activities for 2016/17 including
topics for thematic reviews. We would like your ideas and input on the areas for focus as soon
as possible.
We have already been receiving requests for you to attend speaking engagements and meeting
invitations. Closer to your start date, we wil  brief you on these, and also seek your preference in
responding to invitations and for establishing regular meetings with stakeholders.
INFORMATION YOU WILL NEED ONCE STARTED
You wil  need up-to-date information on the status of work in a number of areas, such as:
> our interactions with the CYF transformations,
> UNCROC,
> the Voices Project, and
> the Minister’s YACS.
We recommend separate face-to-face briefing on these topics. However, if there is a topic you
would like further information on, please let us know.

Briefing to the Incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner

31

Appendix 1: Origins and influences on the
Children’s Commissioner 2003 Act
EXPANDING THE CONCEPT FROM THE 1989 ACT
The role of Commissioner specified in the 1989 Act was quite narrowly focused on the operation
of CYF services. However the possibility of a children’s commissioner or ombudsman had been
discussed in NZ in the context of advocacy for children’s rights from the 1960s. UNCROC was
part of the same international movement, and adopted by the UN in 1989. NZ signed it in 1990
and ratified it in 1993. It was an obvious step for the Commissioner to take a leading role in
promoting UNCROC, and the wider rights of children even though it was not an explicit part of
the 1989 Act.
The development of the 2003 Act illustrates some of the dynamics of the shifting ideas and
priorities for the Office and the role of the Commissioner at that time. They were founded in
calls for increased autonomy of the Commissioner and related to:
> Compliance with UNCROC
> Independence and Advocacy
> Focus on critique and review of government services to children
> Review of deaths – “sentinel events”.
1996 GOVERNMENT CHANGE FROM NATIONAL TO NATIONAL/NZ FIRST COALITION
>  UNCROC report had questioned the ability of the Commissioner to be independent when its
budget was coming through the department it was monitoring. Mr O’Reilly discussed this in
the 1996 Annual Report and, in a separate briefing paper to the Minister, suggested greater
autonomy and broader links than the welfare sector focus. He cited the Norwegian Children’s
Ombudsman as a model of greater autonomy and wider powers.
>  Mr O’Reil y’s conception focused on need to advocate with a wider range of agencies than
DSW – more than 60% of complaints and even more enquiries related to NGOs or
government agencies other than DSW. He proposed a national wide advocacy scheme,
linked with established groups such as Auckland Youth Law Project and Community Law
Centres.
1997 - 1999 PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS
>  In 1997 Anne Batten (NZ First) introduced a Private Members Bill to give greater
independence to the Commissioner – it was defeated 68 to 50. Minister Sowry did
acknowledge that it might be timely to review the status and functions of the Commissioner.
[Barrington 2004, pp76, 77]
>  Throughout 1998 Roger McClay further expanded the public advocacy role giving more
speeches and presentations. In November 1998 Opposition Social Welfare spokesperson
Steve Maharey promulgated Children’s Commissioner (Convention Rights) Bill, which
enabled issuing of directions, and direct reporting to the Prime Minister. [Barrington 2004
p105]
>  In March 1999 there was a Parliamentary Commissioner for Children Bill introduced by
Alliance MP, making the Commissioner an Officer of Parliament, like the Ombudsman,
bypassing Ministerial control of budget or performance agreements. Both Ian Hassall (past
Commissioner) and Roger McClay (current Commissioner) made submissions in favour of this
Bill, with Dr Hassal  recommending that UNCROC should be made the main frame of
reference for the Office. Some greater autonomy fol owed the restructuring of DSW in 1999,
with funding now coming through the Ministry of Social Policy, separate from the new
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.
32

2000 NEW LABOUR/ ALLIANCE GOVERNMENT INCREASES FUNDING AND PRIORITY
>  In August 2000 Ministry of Education funding was al ocated to child advocacy training. Two-
day workshops, and community focused meetings were held around the country and by
March 2002 around 1000 people had taken part.
>  In 2001 the Commissioner received a major funding increase in Budget (an extra $2.8m over
4 years), “to better promote the rights of children and to monitor our compliance with the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” (Maharey press release 22 May 2001).
>  Features of new legislation were to have been promoted at UN Special Session on Children
19 -21 Sept 2001. The Special Session was cancelled on 12 Sept, following the Twin Towers
attack, and Minister Maharey’s press statement contained elements from his intended
speech:
"In particular I think other countries will be interested to hear that the Labour-Alliance
Government is:
o
developing an Agenda for Children setting out our vision for children, drawing on
more than 3500 submissions made by New Zealand children;
o
increasing the powers and resources of the Commissioner for Children to raise the
profile of human rights for children and give them a more effective advocate; and,
o
providing significant additional funding for Child, Youth and Family to enable them
to provide professional services to children and families in crisis and to support
organisations working to build strong communities.
"New Zealand will also support UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's cal  for the UN
General Assembly to immediately adopt the draft programme of action for children
which the Special Session was to consider.”1
>  The Commissioner for Children Bil  was introduced a few weeks later in October 2001. The
Special Session on Children was eventually held in May 2002, and the Minister’s speech to
the Session (9 May) made no mention of the Office, or the new legislation which was stil
before the House.
COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN BILL
>  10 October 2001: The First Reading speeches from all parties were generally positive, but
National Opposition members highlighted the shift from Labour’s manifesto commitment to
make the Commissioner an Officer of Parliament. The rationale given by Select Committee
members for doing this was that such a status was incompatible with, and would hinder, the
Commissioner’s advocacy function.
>  Other issues raised in the first reading speeches covered independence and the appearance
of independence from the Government of the day:
o
More consultative appointment process was asked for, to ensure more independence
and broader support: there were complaints about lack of consultation over Dr Kiro’s
appointment.
o
A need for funding of the Commissioner to be independent of influence from the
agency (CYPF) being monitored.
>  Second Reading 5 Nov 2003: The Bill came back before the House two years later. The main
changes agreed by the Select Committee (as highlighted by the Minister) were:
o
Title changed to “Children’s Commissioner” rather than Commissioner for Children.
(Places more emphasis on “Children”, and consistent with similar titles e.g. Human
Rights Commissioner.)

1 https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/maharey-backs-un-decision-postpone-children039s-summit-reiterates-government039s-
commitment-
Briefing to the incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner
33

link to page 33
o
More transparent process for appointment; the role to be advertised, and Minister “to
have regard for desirability of consulting with organisations or persons who have a
special interest in the functions of the commissioner”
o
The Commissioner was required to develop means of consulting children.
>  A Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) added new clauses (30A to 30C) giving the Minister the
ability to review operations and performance, and demand information.
>  Several members of the Select Committee expressed concern that submissions had
illustrated that people mistakenly thought the Commissioner did function as an Ombudsman
– sorting out individual’s problems and able to call government agencies to account.
>  The Bil  was eventual y passed in December 2003. 2003 had been a tumultuous year for CYFS,
which is likely to have affected the process of the Bill.2  The last few months of 2003 – which
were the first few months of Dr Kiro’s term - were particularly difficult, with widespread
highly critical publicity about several very tragic child deaths involving CYFS. CYFS was
immediately heavily criticised following the death of Coral Burrows in September. The
damning results of a First Principles Baseline Review commissioned in late 2002 were
released in October, followed by the resignation of the CE. In November a report on the
2001 murders of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson was published, confirming serious failings
by CYFS.
>  These events possibly explain why the SOP concerned the performance and operations of
the Office and its handling of sensitive information, focusing on its role as a monitoring and
investigative agency rather than strategic level issues such as UNCROC or advocacy
functions.


2 Legislation establishing the Families Commission was also passed in December 2003, and would have required attention from
some of the same policy and legislative development teams.
34

Appendix 2: Historic Timeline
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992  1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Commissioner
Dr Ian Hassal , 1989–1994
Laurie O’Reilly, 1994–1997
Roger McClay 1998 – Aug 2003
(5 years)
(4 years)
(5 years)
Minister
Michael
Jenny Shipley
Peter Gresham
Roger Sowry
Steve Maharey
Cul en
Government
Labour
National
National/New Zealand First  Labour/Alliance
Coalition
UNCROC

UNCRO

UNCRO

State

State

C
C
reporting cycle
Party
party
signed
ratified
Report
report II
I
Issues and
Getting Started
The Work of the Office
A Nationwide Education Advocacy Service
Events (Issue
Monitoring and Reviewing the 1989 Act
The Legal/Justice System
New Zealand Children’s Day
headings from
Children and Young People’s Rights
New Zealand Law and UNCROC
No Hitting of Children
Other Functions Related to the Act
Care and Protection
Monitoring the Act
Barrington)
Researching Children, Young People and the  Research
The Education Sector
Act
Other Matters
The Justice/ Legal System
Autonomy for the Office
UNCROC
The Health Sector
The Education Sector
The Education Sector
Fathers
Abuse
No Hitting of Children
Films, Videos, TV and Publications
Advocating a No-hitting Approach
Fathers
The Office and Role of the Commissioner
The Health Sector
Child Mortality and Health
The Office and Politics
Reviewing Child Deaths
The Office
International Links
The United Nations Convention on the Rights  Advocating for Children
Greater Independence
of the Child (UNCROC)
* Children, Young Persons and their  * October 1999 - Child, Youth and Family Services
Policies for Children and Families
Families Agency within MSD (CYPFA)  (CYFS) established independently of MSD.
* May 92 CYPS becomes a DSW business unit
35

Year
2003  2004  2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Commissioner
Dr Cindy Kiro Sept 2003 —  Sept 2008; extended to  Dr John Angus Dr Russell Wills (from July 2011 - 5 years)
April 2009 (5.5 years)
(2.25 years)
Deputy Commissioner Jo Cribb (Sept 2011 –  Oct 2012);
(appointed for 6  Justine Cornwal  (March 2013 – June 2016)
months from April
2009, reappointed
for 13 months to
Dec 2010)
Minister
Steve Maharey (Nania Mahuta –  Youth  Paula Bennett
Anne Tol ey Oct
Affairs)
Government
Labour/Progressive Coalition
National-led Government
UNCROC

State

State

reporting cycle
party
party
report
report
III & IV
V
Issues and
New Act passed Dec 2003
Referendum to
March 2012 Appointed expert group on child poverty;  Child
Events
Child abuse and family violence
overturn s59
Poverty Stocktake; publication of working papers and two
Child Poverty
repeal
major reports
Early Intervention programme Te Ara Tukutuku
Auckland Office
Vulnerable Children work / Children’s Action Plan
Youth Justice
reduced
2014 Guidelines for food in schools programmes
Bullying and violence in schools
Co-location with
Closure of Auckland Office
Child’s Rights training continued
Families
Review of publications leads to ending of quarterly Children,
2005 Opened Auckland Office
Commission
revamp of website and move to on-line publications
2006 Auckland staff increased to total 5 FTE
Financial
August 2015 first State of Care report
July 2006 -  CYFS returned to the Ministry of Social  tightening

Development
Children in Care:
Increased CYF monitoring
A report into the
Feb 2007  Respectful Schools: Restorative Practices in  quality of services
Education
provided to
May 2007 Repeal of section 59 of Crimes Act
children in care
36

From Tim Garlick, 2012, Social Developments: An organisational history of the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors, 1860 – 2011. Page 19,
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/about-msd/history/social-developments.pdf The current organisational structure is the same as 2010.

37

link to page 34 link to page 38
Appendix 3: Priorities and focus of
Commissioners 2003 to 2016

SEPTEMBER 2003 – APRIL 2008 DR CINDY KIRO
Dr Cindy Kiro gives a good summary of how she saw herself and her predecessors in her
comments in her first annual report (2002/2003).
“The office began with Dr Ian Hassal , a leader in NZ Plunket and paediatrician who
championed the CYPF Act and establishment of the Office….Laurie O’Reilly followed,
bringing his legal expertise to the role. …. Roger McClay has brought his political
expertise to the role, increasing the media profile of the Office and using cases such as
Whakarua and Witika to highlight unacceptable behaviour and practice against children
in New Zealand. …As the Office has increased in its effectiveness, additional work has
been generated. ……I look forward to bringing a greater focus on the important work of
stopping violence towards children and in preventing child poverty. There is a huge
opportunity to involve the NGO, Iwi and Māori communities and local government in
addressing these issues.”
A summary from the end of Dr Kiro’s term concludes: “Some of the issues adversely affecting
children and young people in NZ have been the same over the years, although awareness of
them has increased. These issues include, in order of public debate and political interest:
physical punishment of children, child abuse and other family violence, youth offending,
bullying, child poverty, child health issues, and education issues including
suspension/exclusion.”3
Office structure and working style
Dr Kiro had a background in social work, community and Māori development, and had most
recently been an Associate Professor in a Research Centre based at Massey University in
Auckland. The Office was restructured to focus on its roles of investigations and advocacy, and
had an average of 13 staff over Dr Kiro’s term. An Auckland Office was opened in 2005 with two
staff, increased to 5 FTE by the fol owing year. Auckland was home base for Dr Kiro, home for
almost one third of NZ’s children, and facing major local government reforms at that time.
Dr Kiro undertook (and was criticised for) a lot of international travel, particularly as part of a
strong international movement promoting the concept of Children’s Ombudsmen. The Office
was also designated a National Prevention Mechanism (NPM) to examine and make
recommendations for improvements to places of detention, following NZ’s ratification of
Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
treatment (OPCAT) in March 2007.4 This gave a new focus to monitoring of CYF residences.
Dr Kiro continued Mr McClay’s strategy of working with NGO groups, although seems to have
been less successful in maintaining cordial links with government. This period saw a wider
growth of public interest in children’s issues and advocacy for change. A number of new child
lobby groups began (e.g. Child Poverty Action Group, Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa,
EPOCH NZ, Every Child Counts), and there was increasing public advocacy from professional
organisations – Paediatric Society and Public Health Association, and service providers such as
Barnardos and Plunket.

3 Beth Wood, Children Issue 68, Autumn 2009
4 Other NZ NPMs are the Ombudsman, Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces, and Police Complaints Authority.
38

Strategic Themes
Dr Kiro’s initial Strategic plan focused on preventing violence against children; reducing child
poverty and promoting UNCROC. Work on CYF monitoring also became a major focus as her
term evolved.
The 2007/2008 Annual report set out a Vision statement that “The rights of every child and
young person in New Zealand are recognised and each enjoys good health, education, safety
and economic wel being.” This vision was supported by three Outcomes:
> Every child is safe and nurtured
> Every child has adequate resources and opportunities to develop
> Society’s attitudes and behaviour change to become more child-focused
Major issues
Addressing violence against children was a dominating theme of Dr Kiro’s term. She was a key
figure in the on-going public debate on repeal of s59. The section was repealed in May 2007,
but intense lobbying against the change continued. A campaign for a citizens-initiated
referendum supporting “a smack as part of good parental correction” had been launched in
February 2007. and a referendum held in late 2009. In her final editorial in Children (Autumn
2009) Dr Kiro described the $10mil ion referendum as “a waste of money”, and criticised “scare
mongering” that parents who ‘smack’ wil be criminalised. Through this period there was huge
demand from frontline services for two particular resources: Children are Unbeatable - 7 Very
Good Reasons not to Hit Children, and Choose to Hug.
While the child homicide rate declined each year during Dr Kiro’s term, there were several
children’s deaths that caused much public criticism of CYF, and set some of the tone for her
term. A key report on 2001 murders of Saliel and Olympia Aplin was published in Nov 2003 –
one of first issues Dr Kiro worked on. At the same time, Carol Burrows was murdered by her step
father, despite her biological father having sought CYF intervention for her. Dr Kiro participated
in a Ministerial Family Violence Task Force. Notable publications on this topic included a review
of NZ police data from 1991 to 2000 identifying the characteristics of the children who died and
the people who kil ed them, and how services responded to child homicides (Connolly and
Doolan, Dec 2007, Lives Cut Short, Child death by maltreatment), and Death and serious injury
from assault of children aged under 5 years in Aotearoa New Zealand June 2009. The office also
reviewed six year’s data covering 271 children “known to CYF” who died.
Attention to child abuse and neglect included work with the Paediatric Society of NZ,
encouraging health sector to take more responsibility for child protection and sharing
information and resources to protect children at risk.
The office gave attention to on-going Youth Justice issues: continuing concern about young
people being held in police cells; liaison with judiciary, especially the Principal Youth Court
Judge; and submissions on proposed law changes in 2007 and 2008. This included Ron Mark’s
2007 private member’s bill to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old.
Education topics featured increasing numbers of complaints from parents about young people
being excluded. A 2009 publication School Safety, An inquiry into the safety of students at school,
addressed bul ying and violence, as an issue that was raised in almost every consultation with
children and young people. Funding of a Parents Legal Information Line (PLINFO) through
Wellington Community Law Centre began, receiving around 1900 calls per year concerning
education concerns. This service is now called “Students Rights Service”, and funded by MoE.
Briefing to the incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner
39

link to page 38 link to page 40
A universal outcomes focus for al  children was developed, featuring an Early Intervention
model “Te Ara Tukutuku: An Integrated Approach to early intervention” framework for 0 – 17
years, based on Scottish model Getting it Right for Every Child. This proposed a health,
education and safety plan for every child, and support for their families. A review commissioned
from AUT published in June 2006 set out an agenda for improving child health outcomes -
More than an apple a day: Children’s right to good health. 5 In 2006 the office stopped producing
a yearly report card, given that MSD had started producing Child and Young People: Indicators of
Wellbeing in New Zealand
Work on CYF issues: A systematic mechanism was agreed with CYF to facilitate access to CYF
information via a shared portal, and quarterly reports were sent to the Minister, based on this
and a regular visiting programme. Site visits by the Commissioner and Chief Youth Court and
Family Court Judges were replaced by a more systematic audit-based monitoring of CYFS
services with increased dedicated staff positions from 2006/07. These positions also supported
newly established Grievance Panels for CYF residences, a Charter of children’s rights for al
children in care, and a robust complaints process.
A comprehensive report on child poverty A Fair go for all children, Actions to address child
poverty in NZ (Dwyer and Fletcher, 2008) found 22% of children in “unacceptable poverty”. This
report was useful within the sector but did not achieve the level of public or governmental
engagement reached by subsequent work in Dr Will’s term.
Regional Child Rights training and education rights training begun by Mr McClay continued in
6 locations per year. In Febuary 2004, a children’s rights symposium Children Call: For an
Aotearoa/New Zealand Fit For Us, was attended by 150 children, and contributed to children’s
rights chapter of the National Plan of Action on Human Rights. The Auckland office was
significantly engaged in advocating for children’s interests in Auckland local government
reforms during this time, as well as major regional health and welfare initiatives.
Dr Kiro’s term also saw the emphasis moving from individual cases to wider advocacy and
monitoring. Nevertheless, the office continued to deal with 850 – 1000 individual public
enquiries a year through the Child Rights Line.

APRIL 2009 – DECEMBER 2010 DR JOHN ANGUS
A replacement for Dr Kiro had not been appointed by the time her term concluded, despite a 6
month extension) and Dr Angus was initial y appointed for a six month term while the search
continued.6 His term was extended twice, eventual y covering two and a quarter years.
Office structure and working style
The interim nature of Dr Angus’s appointment undoubtedly affected his achievements, but he
was also a much less publically oriented figure. He had spent 10 years as a social worker with
CYF, before becoming a policy advisor. As a principal adviser in the Ministry of Social
Development from 2001 to 2006 he lead work on preventing child abuse for the Taskforce on
Action on Violence within Families, was part of a ministerial task force on the Community and
Voluntary Sector, and helped write the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. Given this
background, it was unsurprisingly that he focused on rebuilding relationships with government
agencies, which had become very fractious by the end of Dr Kiro’s term.
The Auckland Office was reduced to 2 advisors, and the Wellington structure was flattened
leaving Principal Advisors reporting directly to the Commissioner. Resourcing for CYF
monitoring was increased, as agreed with the Minister. The Office moved to joint premises with
the Families Commission, and tight controls improved the financial position of the Office.

5 http://thehub.superu.govt.nz/project/more-apple-day-children%E2%80%99s-right-good-health
6 Reportedly anti-child abuse campaigner Christine Rankin turned down the job because she didn't want to move to Wel ington.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577501

40

Funding from the Ministry of Education which supported regional children’s rights training
ended in 2009.
Strategic Themes
Dr Angus’ initial priorities were listed in the 2009/10 Annual Report as:
> Monitor, assess and make recommendations on services to children in care
> Preventing child abuse and neglect in families, and violence in other settings
> Advocate for children in Auckland local government restructuring
> Monitor and assess interests of young children in provision of ECE
> Monitor impact of recession on children’s economic position and advocate for policies that
mitigate long term adverse effects
> Promote mechanisms for children’s participation and access to review and grievance
procedures
The 2010/2011 Annual report repeated those priorities, along with additional priorities of:
> Promoting inclusive education (inclusion of children with various disabilities into mainstream
education)
> Transition out of care provisions of the CYPF Act
> Responses to child neglect
> How the interests of children might be given more weight in policy work
> Sexual health of young people
> Child injury prevention.
Main areas of activity, and major publications
Through Dr Angus’ term the work continued to be organised under the outputs established
during Dr Kiro’s term.
Output 1: Monitoring and Investigation
> Child, Youth and Family: consideration of “exceptions” reporting – complaints, reports on
serious incidents, serious offending, deaths.
> Treatment of children and young people in detention: site visits
> Detention of young people in police cells
> Publication of Children in Care: A report into the quality of services provided to children in care
Output 2: Individual and Systematic Advocacy
> Individual cases
> Legislative and Policy Change: submissions to Welfare Working Group on long-term benefit
dependency; Child Support scheme; “Through their lens: an inquiry into non-parental
education and care of infants and toddlers” (March 2011)
> General advocacy for a more child-focused and responsive society: advocacy training courses
for Māori Wardens in 7 centres; attachment theory and advocacy for trauma
> Young People’s Reference Group
> UNCROC – August 2010 Report to UN

Briefing to the incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner
41

JULY 2011 – JUNE 2016 DR RUSSELL WILLS
Dr Wills, a paediatrician at Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, with interests and experience in
autism, family violence, child abuse and medical aspects of children in Child, Youth and Family
care, became the sixth commissioner in July 2012. Because Dr Wil s was appointed on a half-
time basis, and had less experience in government policy work, a Deputy Commissioner position
was instituted to ensure continuity of strong relationships with government and the NGO sector.
Dr Jo Cribb held the role from September 2011 to October 2012, and Dr Justine Cornwal  from
March 2013 to June 2016.
Office structure and working style
Co-location with the Families Commission continued, with cost savings used to add one FTE to
monitoring team (going from 1.8 to 2.8). The Expert Advisory Group formed to support the child
poverty work was made possible by significant pro-bono support and several secondments from
other agencies (notably MSD and Otago and Victoria Universities), and use of reserves built up
during Dr Angus’s term.
The Office was restructured into three groups: Advocacy, Monitoring and Corporate. Auckland
Office was closed to consolidate resources in Wellington. Roles were revised to allow Managers
time for coaching, the focus of the Office was somewhat narrowed to achieve more on fewer
topics, and new accountability tools including an Outcomes framework were devised.
Strategic Themes
The first outcomes framework featured four priorities: children’s health, child poverty, early
childhood education, and child abuse and neglect. (Statement of Intent, May 2012). These
carried over for a second year, albeit in a revised order. In 2014 the outcomes were regrouped
into just two areas:
> Ensuring that children and young people in the care of Child, Youth and Family are receiving
quality services that improve their outcomes and wellbeing, and
> Advocating for the needs of vulnerable children to ensure they get the services, supports and
resources they need to be kept safe and thrive.
Main areas of activity, and major publications
Dr Wills initially established four priorities. These priorities and examples of the work activities
for 2012/2013 and 2013/14 fol ow.
> Priority Outcome 1: More children are safe and free from all forms of abuse and neglect
o
CYF Monitoring – aligned reporting with CYF’s self-assessment framework; move to
more regular meetings and site visits and meeting OPCAT requirements
o
Work with faith communities on statement to end family violence – National
Statement signed by 40 communities and Forums with 290 faith community leaders in
four different centres (hosted or participated)
o
Development of thematic review approach for CYF monitoring, designed to produce
recommendations on core systemic issues rather than particular smal er elements;
eleven site visits
> Priority Outcome 2: More children grow up with access to adequate resources
o
Establishment of Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, issues and
options paper; 24 working papers and 2 consultation reports; final report in Dec 2012;
formal response from Ministerial Committee on Poverty in May 2013; continued work
to progress the recommendations.
o
Contribution to Budget 2013 inclusions: extension of Warm Up NZ home insulation;
expansion of Kick Start school breakfast programme; microfinance loans scheme;
warrant of fitness scheme for rental properties; increasing the number of larger
Housing NZ properties; increased support for budget advice services.
o
Developed and published Guidelines for School Food Programmes.
o
Established the Child Poverty Monitor (Dec 2013) in partnership with J R McKenzie
Trust and University of Otago, to run for five years.
42

o
Initiating work with philanthropic and business sector to increase their role in
addressing poverty, presentations to over 70 events
> Priority Outcome 3: More children grow up healthy
o
Child and Youth Health Compass project – baseline established with all 20 DHBs and
self-assessments against good practice guidelines completed. Elements of the project
have been continued within some DHBs, and within programmes with MoH.
o
Support of Children’s Action Plan implementation
o
Commissioner awarded NZMA Chairman’s Award for outstanding contribution to
health of NZ
> Priority Outcome 4: More children achieve their educational potential
o
Advocacy for improved quality ECE services; concluded that enough work already
going on concerning participation so focused on work on improving home learning
environment. Published work on parents role in supporting their children education
success.
o
Submissions on Education Amendment Bill – focused on partnership (Charter) schools
and effectiveness for Māori, Pasifika and children from low SES backgrounds
o
Commissioner actively involved in the advisory group that developed and published
on Bullying Prevention and Response guidelines.
> Underpinning strategies and other achievements:
o
UNCROC – contribution to UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review;
continued to convene UNCROC Monitoring Group (UMG).
o
Redevelopment of website, move to all publication online only.
o
Young People’s Advisory Group led independent activies including: survey of school
students, submissions on Vulnerable children, Tobacco packaging, Cyberbullying.
In 2014/15, the focus was narrowed to two priority areas. These continued for 2015/16 as wel .
> Priority Outcome 1: Ensuring that children and young people in the care of Child, Youth and
Family are receiving quality services that improve their outcomes and wellbeing
o
Embedding new monitoring framework of CYF.
o
First “State of Care” report, a major step change in reporting on CYF in a more
publically focused and accessible form.
o
Convene a Youth Advisory Panel for the Minister to inform CYF modernization.
> Priority Outcome 2: Advocating for the needs of vulnerable children to ensure they get the
services, supports and resources they need to be kept safe and thrive
o
Child Poverty Monitor published in December each year.
o
Giving2Kids resource set up on web site to support a range of stakeholders (especially
philanthropic and business) to take action to address child poverty.
o
Publication of Guidelines for food in schools programmes.
o
Consistent feedback that the Commissioner’s focus on child poverty over the 5-year
term has been instrumental in raising public concern, and in getting increased activity
from government, philanthropic, business and communities to address poverty.
> Underpinning strategies and other achievements:
o
Child and Young People’s Voices Project (with online surveys in partnership with
schools) replaced the Young People’s Advisory Group.
o
Alongside UNCROC work, developing resources and expertise on child-centred
thinking, engaging with children (e.g. developing the Listening2Kids resources on the
website, published Being Child-Centred).
o
Interactions with government agencies on many topics, notably the Children’s Action
Plan, Youth Crime Action Plan, Better Public Service targets.

Briefing to the incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner
43

Appendix 4: OCC stakeholder survey results

44

Briefing to the incoming Commissioner | May 2016 | Office of the Children's Commissioner
45

Office of the Children’s Commissioner
Level 7, 110 Featherston Street
Wellington 6011
Find us on Facebook: Children’s Commissioner NZ

46

Document Outline