Comprehensive Analysis of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Act 2025
On 30 June 2025, New Zealand’s Parliament enacted the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (the 2025 Act), a pivotal piece of legislation aimed at reforming the oversight and advocacy structures within the Oranga Tamariki system. This system, formerly known as the Ministry for Children, is responsible for child welfare and protection services in New Zealand. The 2025 Act introduces significant changes to the governance and operational frameworks of both the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Children’s Commissioner, with the overarching goal of enhancing the independence and effectiveness of child advocacy and oversight mechanisms.
The 2025 Act amends two key pieces of legislation:
- Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022: Established the Independent Children’s Monitor within the Education Review Office to oversee Oranga Tamariki’s operations.
- Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022: Replaced the Children’s Commissioner with a multi-member board known as the Children and Young People’s Commission.
These reforms were initially implemented by the Labour government in 2022 but faced criticism from various stakeholders, including opposition parties and child advocacy groups, who expressed concerns about the reduced independence and clarity in advocacy roles. The 2025 Act seeks to address these concerns by restructuring the oversight and advocacy bodies.
Key Provisions of the 2025 Act
1. Independent Children’s Monitor as an Independent Crown Entity
The 2025 Act re-establishes the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity, governed by a three-member board, which may include a judge. This move aims to enhance the Monitor’s autonomy and credibility, ensuring it can effectively oversee Oranga Tamariki’s compliance with national care standards and related regulations. The current Chief Executive, Arran Jones, will continue in his role during the transition period until 31 July 2026.
2. Restoration of the Children’s Commissioner
The Act dissolves the Children and Young People’s Commission and reinstates the position of the Children’s Commissioner as an independent Crown entity. The Commissioner is required to have knowledge of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori culture, and tikanga Māori, reflecting New Zealand’s commitment to upholding Māori rights and perspectives in child advocacy. The Governor-General, on the advice of the Minister for Social Development and the Children’s Commissioner, can appoint a Deputy Children’s Commissioner.
3. Enhanced Accountability and Compliance
The 2025 Act strengthens accountability measures for agencies subject to the Independent Children’s Monitor’s oversight. It mandates these agencies to respond to the Monitor’s annual reports on compliance with the Oranga Tamariki (National Care Standards and Related Matters) Regulations 2018, thereby fostering a culture of transparency and continuous improvement within the child welfare system.
The 2025 Act was introduced into Parliament by Minister of Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston, on 31 October 2024. It passed its first reading on 5 November 2024 with the support of all parties. The bill underwent a select committee process, during which stakeholders provided feedback, leading to minor amendments. The second and third readings occurred on 24 June 2025, with the bill passing with the support of all parties except Te Pāti Māori, which opposed the bill on the grounds that it did not adequately involve Māori communities and did not address historical injustices related to the treatment of Māori children in state care.
The provisions of the 2025 Act came into force on 1 August 2025. During the transition period, existing leaders of the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Children’s Commissioner will continue in their roles to ensure a smooth handover and maintain stability within the child welfare system.
Criticisms and Controversies
Despite the broad support for the 2025 Act, it has faced criticism from various quarters:
- Te Pāti Māori: The party argues that the Act undermines the voice of Māori communities and neglects the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
- Labour Party: While supporting the intent to enhance the Monitor’s independence, Labour expressed concerns about reverting to a single Children’s Commissioner, fearing a loss of diversity in representation.
- Child Advocacy Groups: Some organizations contend that the reforms do not go far enough in addressing systemic issues within the Oranga Tamariki system and that more radical changes are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of children in care.
The Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Act 2025 represents a significant shift towards strengthening the independence and accountability of New Zealand’s child welfare oversight bodies. By re-establishing the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity and restoring the role of the Children’s Commissioner, the Act aims to provide clearer advocacy and more robust oversight mechanisms. However, ongoing debates highlight the complexities involved in reforming child welfare systems, particularly concerning the inclusion of Māori perspectives and the need for comprehensive systemic change.
In a case specific to the 5th Criminal Court of Rome in Italy;
“If the suspect manually harasses the woman in less than 10 seconds, this is not harassment.”
So to speak, the establishment of the verdict brought the country to its feet.
Antonio Avola, 66, senior janitor/high school custodian of the Roberto Rossellini Cine TV Institute, was acquitted by the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Rome Court of the crime of groping a minor student at school.
The event dates back to April 2022. The prosecutor of the 5th Criminal Court of Rome requested a prison sentence of 3 years and 6 months for the suspect Avola, on the grounds of sexual assault within the scope of sexual immunity and physical crimes.
According to Avola’s defense during the trial; The contact lasted only a few seconds, was a non-malicious and accidental gesture, “almost a joke”.
The judges who acquitted the defendant stated that they decided to acquit him “because it did not constitute a real criminal charge.”
According to the judges, even though “touching” took place, the action taken in a short period of time between “5 and 10 seconds” was not enough for the act itself to constitute “harassment”!?
The girl who was the victim described the events differently;
According to that; While he was on the stairs, someone put his hand down his trousers and started to lift him up, which he noticed and frightened him. When he turned around, he encountered the 66-year-old. The man said to himself; He followed her by saying, “I love you, you loved me too, but you know I was joking.” A friend of his also witnessed the incident from beginning to end.
Ads
REPORT THIS AD
In the defendant’s statement; He admitted that he picked up the girl from the ground, but; He denied putting his hand in his pants. He said that if there was contact with private parts, ‘it was only by accident, without any “lustful” desire.
The judges’ decision was based on the belief and assumption that the doorman had no intention of harassing the young woman, while believing the girl’s story. According to the court panel, this was “just a lustless, incompetent maneuver”. The acquittal of Antonio Avola brought about a variety of reactions that questioned the interpretation of truth and concrete evidence and the perception of the boundary between jokes and harassment.
The anger caused by this incident in Italy is not actually a first, but; For example, in similar cases, the judicial process took place much more soundly; History when sports reporter Greta Beccaglia, assigned to the Empoli-Fiorentina match, was harassed by a fan on live broadcast; It was November 2021.
The video of this action, which immediately went viral, became the signal for a real wave of anger in Italy and Europe. The journalist initiated the judicial process for the harassment incident he suffered and achieved an exemplary result for everyone. The case against Andrea Serrani, who was responsible for the dastardly act, resulted in a conviction.
The Florence Court made the decision; In a historic sentence, he acknowledged that this was “a clear act of sexual violence that leaves no room for any exceptions” and rejected the idea that it was a simple “fan outburst” and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison, which was subsequently suspended in accordance with the Italian execution law and based on the obligation to pay compensation. It was transformed into a requirement for people convicted of sexual violence to attend recovery courses.
When I contacted my Italian lawyer colleagues about the issue, they explained that in Italy, the pure crime of “sexual harassment” is not included in the law, and the committees have ruled on this issue within the framework of fairness.
Actually, perhaps the most interesting part of the matter is this; Bill No. 89, which was presented as the first signatory by deputy Valeria Valente, a member of the Senate of the Republic of Italy, could not be tabled in the senate. Because this proposal text contains such phrases that the delegations will not need to comment on the issue we are talking about, but; This bill could not be discussed in the Senate and was left open to interpretation, and eventually the situation came to this point.
If you are curious about the relevant bill submitted to the Senate and request, I can send it as a .pdf file and share it with its translation.
It is of course essential that judges, who make a decision on a specific case, regardless of village, city or country, and sometimes prosecutors in some countries, act by remembering that they are human beings, in addition to their professional knowledge, experience and equipment;
I should also add that just as decisions of this kind cause outrage in society, they also regularly trigger and deepen the trauma experienced by the victim. Likewise, in proportion to the severity of the criminal sentence, the person/persons who are victimized become more attached to life, their belief in justice becomes stronger, and in similar examples, it provides a ray of hope for people and makes individuals feel much stronger.
Latest figures from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) revealed that 70 percent of Italian women who were harassed between 2016 and 2021 did not report the incident.
When considered together with these statistics, the gravity of the situation is revealed more clearly for Italy; Of course, it is not a good indicator for Italy that 7 out of 10 women are subjected to harassment and cannot explain the abuse, and that those who do not remain silent and show courage cannot receive a fair and prompt favorable decision within the judicial process.
Finally, I would like to ask the Italian delegation that made this decision.
Who decides that 10 seconds is not a long time?
Who counts the seconds when being harassed?
