The Missing Piece: Family Group Conferences, FGC Coordinators and Māori Outcomes

The recently released Oranga Tamariki response to the Independent Children's Monitor's Outcomes for Tamariki and Rangatahi Māori and their Whānau in the Oranga Tamariki System 2024/25 report acknowledges significant challenges facing tamariki Māori. The report discusses Māori over-representation, unmet care and protection needs, youth justice concerns, iwi-led initiatives, workforce development, commissioning reform, and data improvements.

However, one notable omission stands out: there is no mention of Family Group Conferences (FGCs).

This absence is significant

Family Group Conferences are not simply another programme within the Oranga Tamariki system. They are one of the foundational mechanisms upon which the modern child protection and youth justice system in Aotearoa was built. The FGC process emerged directly from the recommendations of Puao-te-Ata-Tū (Daybreak), the landmark report that challenged institutional racism within the welfare system and called for Māori participation, whānau decision-making, and community-led solutions.

The resulting reforms embedded Family Group Conferences into legislation, creating an internationally recognised model that placed whānau, hapū, iwi and communities at the centre of decision-making for children and young people.

Importantly, Parliament did not simply endorse the concept of Family Group Conferences. It enshrined them in law.

The Oranga Tamariki Act contains numerous provisions relating to Family Group Conferences and repeatedly references the role and responsibilities of the Family Group Conference Coordinator. The Act establishes Family Group Conferences as a core decision-making mechanism within both the care and protection and youth justice systems. The role of the Coordinator is similarly protected and recognised throughout the legislation.

This is not accidental.

The Family Group Conference Coordinator occupies a unique position within the system. The Coordinator is not simply an administrator. They are the manager of the Family Group Conference process. They are responsible for ensuring whānau participation, coordinating agencies, facilitating engagement with hapū and iwi, bringing together information, supporting procedural fairness, and creating the conditions for effective whānau decision-making.

The Coordinator is the guardian of the process.

Without effective coordination, preparation and follow-up, the quality and integrity of the Family Group Conference itself is compromised. This is why the absence of any discussion about Family Group Conferences or FGC Coordinators in a report focused on Māori outcomes is so surprising.

Many of the issues identified by the Independent Children's Monitor are precisely the issues that Family Group Conferences were designed to address:

• Supporting whānau-led decision making.

• Preventing unnecessary state intervention.

• Providing culturally grounded responses.

• Strengthening family and community networks.

• Supporting early intervention.

• Creating enduring plans that are owned by whānau rather than imposed by agencies.

• Bringing together statutory agencies, iwi and communities to collectively respond to the needs of tamariki.

The report rightly highlights the importance of Enabling Communities and iwi-led initiatives. Yet the Family Group Conference process is arguably one of the oldest, strongest and most successful examples of an iwi-led and whānau-centred mechanism already embedded within the system.

The FGC process is, in many ways, the original Enabling Communities model.

Long before current discussions about community-led solutions, Family Group Conferences were giving whānau authority, responsibility and ownership over decisions affecting their tamariki.

The report also highlights the Oranga Tamariki Practice Approach and its emphasis on mana-enhancing practice, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and bicultural supervision. These are positive developments.

However, principles alone do not create change.

The Family Group Conference remains one of the most practical and tangible expressions of these principles in action. It provides the mechanism through which whānau voices can be heard, authority can be shared, and decisions can be made collectively.

If Oranga Tamariki is serious about improving outcomes for tamariki Māori, reducing over-representation, and enabling communities, then Family Group Conferences should be central to the conversation.

This requires more than simply maintaining the status quo.

NUPE believes the time has come for a comprehensive review of both the Family Group Conference process and the role of the Family Group Conference Coordinator.

Such a review should consider:

• Whether the current FGC process is achieving the vision originally set out in Puao-te-Ata-Tū.

• The effectiveness of FGCs in achieving outcomes for tamariki and whānau.

• The level of whānau, hapū and iwi participation in decision-making.

• The adequacy of preparation and follow-up support.

• The role and independence of FGC Coordinators.

• Workforce capability, resourcing and professional development.

• Opportunities to strengthen iwi leadership within the process.

• How FGC outcomes are measured and evaluated.

• Whether legislative intent is being fully realised in practice.

If Family Group Conferences are important enough to be repeatedly referenced throughout the Oranga Tamariki Act, then they are important enough to be discussed when considering how to improve outcomes for tamariki Māori.

The omission of Family Group Conferences from this response presents an opportunity for reflection.

Rather than viewing FGCs as a historical feature of the system, Oranga Tamariki should recognise them as one of its greatest strengths and one of its most powerful tools for achieving better outcomes for tamariki Māori.

The challenge is not whether we need more whānau-led solutions.

The challenge is whether we are prepared to invest in, strengthen, and modernise one of the strongest whānau-led mechanisms we already have.

The Family Group Conference is not a side process.

It is a statutory process.

It is an iwi-inspired process.

It is a whānau-centred process.

And it deserves renewed attention, renewed investment, and renewed commitment.

NUPE