He pitopito kōrero
News
News stories
Budget 2025
Budget 2025 – dubbed ‘The Growth Budget’ by Government – includes new spending, savings, and reprioritisation of frontline services with a $1.3 billion operating allowance per annum, which is the lowest allowance in a decade.
There is no new funding earmarked for family violence or sexual violence services.
Minister of Finance Nicola Willis said in a Budget press release:
“Budget 2025 responds to New Zealand’s long-term challenges with initiatives to boost growth, investment and savings; targeted investments in the essential services and infrastructure New Zealanders rely on; and reforms to fix financial holes in the government’s books.”
It aims to stimulate economic growth through initiatives such as the Investment Boost tax incentive, increased employee and employer Kiwisaver contributions, targeted Working for Families support, funding uplifts for health services, investment in education, police, courts, defence, capital infrastructure, and a new Social Investment programme.
A full summary of initiatives can be found on the Treasury website.
Social investment
Budget 2025 sets aside $275 million for the government’s social investment approach, including a $190 million Social Investment Fund for better outcomes for New Zealanders in need. It will invest in at least 20 initiatives over the next 12 months using a different contracting approach than Government agencies usually use.
Minister for Social Investment Nicola Willis said in a Beehive pre-Budget release:
“The Fund is about more than new money. It’s about Government investing earlier, smarter and with much more transparent measurement of the impact interventions are having for the people they are designed to help. The Fund will invest in services that deliver measurable improvements in people’s lives, guided by data and evidence. It will support both new approaches and strengthen existing services that work, to improve the Government’s return on investment and change vulnerable people’s lives for the better.”
According to the Social Investment Agency's website, social investment is an approach to allocation of resources, investment in services, and a method of delivery for social improvements. It aims to help individuals and communities thrive long-term through early intervention and prevention rather than crisis response. When considering how to target interventions, it looks across multiple areas of a person’s life to take a holistic view of the path forward. Resources and interventions focus on those who need them most to create the greatest impact.
Key changes from existing model:
- Service providers can contract to produce outcomes, rather than specific outputs, which allows for more community partnership, innovation, and flexibility when targeting the problem
- Communities are empowered to take a greater role in local social support, reducing demand for government services
- Improved use of data and community insights informs expected outcomes and impacts when commissioning.
The SIA website states that Social Investment Fund Ministers will set the priority outcomes and settings for the Fund in June 2025:
“The Fund will open in August 2025. We expect initial Fund outcomes to align closely with Government’s targets and existing cross-cutting strategies such as the Child and Youth Strategy and the Family Violence and Sexual Violence Strategy and Action Plan.”
The first three initiatives funded by the Social Investment Fund are:
- Autism New Zealand’s early screening and intervention programme that provides services and support for family/whānau, caregivers and professionals.
- Ka Puta Ka Ora Emerge Aotearoa’s evidence-based approach to tackling youth offending and truancy that will help at least 80 families each year to address youth offending and truancy; and
- The He Piringa Whare programme with Te Tihi o Ruahine an alliance of nine hapū, iwi, Māori organisations and providers that will support 130 families at a time with a wraparound service that delivers stable housing, education, training and employment, and other services.
Access to justice
The Budget has allocated $480 million of additional funding for frontline policing.
The courts, tribunals, and legal aid will receive $246 million to clear the court case backlogs and improve better access to justice for victims. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told The Post: "Justice delayed is justice denied. Waiting months or years for a case to be resolved only adds to the frustration and trauma for victims and, indeed, all court participants."
$472 million will be dedicated to managing prison growth from stronger sentencing laws.
Children and young people
The Government has emphasised its intention to address serious youth offending with $103 million funding for Youth Justice facilities, military-style academies, and the implementation of the new Young Serious Offenders regime. Minister for Children Karen Chhour said in a press release: “We continue to want better for, and from, these young people. This is not just an investment in facilities, it is an investment in them.”
“There is no evidence that military style academies will benefit the young people or make communities safer by reducing re-offending. What these measures fail to do is address the underlying cause, and what led them down that path in the first place.”
She noted the government had more work to do implementing the recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into state care. “The inquiry highlighted the need for loving, nurturing early intervention and a move away from custodial care.”
Some commentators have also expressed concern that this Budget makes little progress on child poverty.
“Let’s be clear [that positives in the Budget] are small scale and are not going to flip the dial to relieve the suffering faced by children and whānau today. This is not the bold investment required to build the foundation for a thriving future.”
Chief Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad said in a press release from Mana Mokopuna:
“Today’s Budget is a missed opportunity for the Government to show that bold leadership, so that children today don’t grow up in poverty, meaning better lives both today and tomorrow… For mokopuna Māori, as well as mokopuna whaikaha and Pacific mokopuna, the impacts of things like food insecurity are even more extreme.”
Others noted that some benefits, like the increased abatement threshold for Working for Families ($42,700 to $44,900) are offset by other policies like means-testing of the first year of Best Start, where families earning just $79,000 will start to lose the previously universal entitlement to financial support during a newborn’s first year of life.
Chief Executive of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS), Alicia Sudden, said that while there were some positive elements in Budget 2025 including Accommodation Supplement boundary updates and Working for Families abatement threshold increases, “this comes at the expense of new parents and fails to make positive progress on child poverty.”
Young people will be directly financially affected by reductions Government contributions to Kiwisaver (to $260.72 annually) while employer and employee contributions rise to 3.5% from April 2026 and 4% from April 2028. The Government will extend the government contribution to 16 and 17-year-olds from 1 July 2025, and extend employer matching to 16 and 17-year-olds from 1 April 2026.
Crown response to abuse in care
Despite key recommendations from the Royal Commission and the Redress Design Group, the government opted to invest $774 million into the current redress system instead of establishing a new survivor-led compensation scheme. It also omitted redress for abuse in faith-based institutions.
Erica Stanford, Lead Coordination Minister for the government’s response, said that the government faced a difficult choice to either spend more time and money on a new scheme, or to invest more in the existing scheme. “For Budget 25 we have prioritised improving the current system as quickly as possible for survivors and investing in changes that have a direct impact for them.”
Funding provides for workforce capacity building, improved inpatient unit safety and privacy, initiatives to prevent entry of children and vulnerable adults into care, Oranga Tamariki safeguarding improvements, oversight of compulsory mental health and addiction care, and Disability Support Services.
“What should have been a day of celebration turned into a day of disappointment for me and I’m sure many others… That investment is wasted. It’s a major slap in the face for the Royal Commission of Inquiry and their recommendation.”
Survivors who have already received payments prior to the change are eligible for top-up payments to their settlements. More information can be found on the new government website here.
Māori
Māori Wardens and the Māori Women’s Welfare League received a share of $14 million increased funding (alongside Pasifika Wardens) to expand their community services including volunteer training and administrative support.
Spinoff Ātea editor Liam Rātana (Ngāti Wairupe/Ngāti Kurī) wrote in an opinion piece that:
“The government has touted over $700 million in funding for Māori. But when you strip out the reallocated funds and examine what’s actually new, the real number is closer to $38m. Meanwhile, more than $750m in Māori-specific initiatives have been axed.”
Professor Matthew Roskruge (Te Atiawa, Ngāti Tama), director of Te Au Rangahau, told the Spinoff that “Māori were virtually invisible” in this Budget. “There’s little here that speaks to Māori priorities or the Māori economy.”
Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission expressed concern that:
“This Budget doubles down on successive reductions to Māori initiatives which are estimated to add up to around $1 billion over the last two years” and reflects a movement of funds from Māori-led initiatives into general funds “undermining the ability of Tangata Whenua to exercise tino rangatiratanga and amounting to erasure of their experience of structural inequity”.
Ethnic communities
The Budget has not delivered any new targeted funding for ethnic communities, despite the size of the ethnic population growing. Vishal Rishi, chief executive of The Asian Network Incorporated, told RNZ that he had hoped to see targeted funding to aid family harm prevention efforts, maternal mental healthcare and maternal care for Asian communities – but none of these items featured in Budget 2025.
Pay equity
Changes to the Equal Pay Act 1872 have reduced the expected cost to the Crown of future pay equity settlements. These amendments are forecast to save $12.8bn over four years and contributed to the funding of Budget 2025.
“The significant savings to the Government will come from the pockets of women working in jobs that are undervalued.”
In an article in The Conversation, University of Auckland academics Jennifer Curtin, Gay Marie Francisco, and Mohammed Salimifar noted that alongside the radical restructure of pay equity claims for undervalued women-dominated occupations, women may not immediately benefit from the government’s Investment Boost initiative due to the gender-segregated structure of the labour market.
Changes to pay equity legislation under urgency resulted in protests around the country. During a rally at Parliament, Te Riu Roa | New Zealand Educational Institute president Ripeka Lessels said the lack of engagement with stakeholders played a major role in mobilising the protest:
“Kāre rātou i paku whakapā mai ki a mātou, anei ō mātou nā hiahia, me kōrero tahi rā tātou. Korekau. I haere rātou ki roto i te rūma, he tere rā te whakautu, te urgency, ka mutu.”
Related media
The everyday New Zealanders who will lose out on Budget 2025, Stuff, 24.05.2025
A guide to the 2025 Growth Budget for people who hate budgets, The Spinoff, 22.05.2025
NZ Budget 2025 at a glance: follow the money here, The Conversation, 22.05.2025
Budget 2025: Some lollies, some scramble, and some woke sushi, The Spinoff, 22.05.2025
What’s in the Budget for young people, RE News, 22.05.2025
What kind of economy produces the highest adolescent suicide rate? Ours, The Spinoff, 19.05.2025
'Kick in the guts,' Abuse in care survivor on redress package, Checkpoint [RNZ audio], 09.05.2025
Consultation now open
Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga | Ministry of Education is seeking feedback on a new draft relationships and sexuality education (RSE) framework. The framework will become part of the refreshed compulsory health and physical education learning curriculum available from 2026. RSE aims to equip school students with knowledge and confidence in topics like puberty and sexual health, healthy relationships, sexuality, and safety.
Consultation on the draft is now open with feedback due 9 May 2025.
Once the consultation closes, feedback will be consolidated into key actions and incorporated into the design of the health and physical education learning area. The updated learning area will be released for consultation in Term 4, 2025.
The draft framework can be found here.
Submit your feedback via the Ministry’s online Survey Monkey form. You’ll be asked three key questions covering age appropriateness of the content, if you think any topics are missing, and if you think any topics need to be removed.
Key elements of the draft framework
The framework outlines proposed teaching that will be covered in RSE from Year 0 to 13.
Education Minister Erica Stanford said in a Government press release:
“Parents deserve certainty and clarity on what their children are learning, when and how in RSE at school so they can make informed decisions about their education… It aims to ensure the content is age-appropriate, evidence-informed, and detailed about what is taught and when.”
Some elements covered in the framework include:
- Years 1-4 - naming body parts, respect and friendships, bullying, digital devices, navigating feelings, and safety.
- Years 5-8 - puberty, conception basics, online risks, some stereotype discussions, different kinds of families and relationships (including first mentions of LGB relationships).
- Years 9-11 - sexual relationships, alcohol and drugs, sexual violence, contraception and STIs, online behaviour, consent, and communication.
- Years 12-13 - nuanced and complex consent scenarios, interpersonal problems, contraception, reproductive health conditions.
The 2020 RSE guidelines and Education Review Office review
The previous non-compulsory 2020 guidelines offered guidance for teaching different age groups about consensual relationships, online bullying, sexualities, gender diversity, and pornography, but were scrapped last June under the National and New Zealand First coalition deal. Schools were instructed to use the 2007 curriculum in the interim.
The 2020 guidelines can be found here:
- Relationships and sexuality education: a guide for teachers, leaders and Boards of Trustees. Years 1-8
- Relationships and sexuality education: a guide for teachers, leaders and Boards of Trustees. Years 9-13
Fiona McNamara, Director - Health Promotion at Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa, said that the 2020 guidelines were “age appropriate, evidence-informed, best practice guidance and it's really disappointing to see that it's disappeared before there's any new guidance issued.”
Last year the Education Review Office (ERO) reviewed the delivery of existing RSE guidelines and curriculum across the country and found significant inconsistencies between schools.
The Education Review Office’s 2024 review of RSE found:
- While RSE is widely supported, students, parents, and whānau have mixed views on when and how much RSE is taught, and whether the curriculum meets their expectations
- What students learn depends on where they go to school, as no RSE content is compulsory
- Recent school leavers report that there were significant gaps in their RSE learning – including 82% of students who didn’t learn and would like to have learned about consent
- Schools face significant challenges in consulting on what to teach in RSE, particularly rural schools and schools with a high Māori roll
- Most, but not all teachers have the capability they need to teach RSE and many find it stressful.
Reception of the new proposed framework
Unlike the 2020 guidelines, the new proposed framework has several notable omissions including references to gender diversity, pornography, and te ao Māori.
“We think that's incredibly harmful for trans young people who deserve to see themselves reflected in the curriculum.”
InsideOUT has created a submission guide to support responses to the consultation, which can be found here.
“Without adequate guidance, kaiako and school leadership may lack crucial advice on how to create positive environments in which bullying, discrimination and social exclusion can’t thrive – especially for rainbow and takatāpui tauira,” he said. “Removing the guidelines sends a harmful message to rainbow staff and tauira that they don’t deserve to be safe at school or work.”
“For a learning area that contains vital and incredibly important information for ākonga, it is vital that educators and whānau have adequate opportunity to provide feedback… It is unacceptable to have such late notice for consultation.”
She also stressed the importance of access to “culturally appropriate non-judgemental information” and schools maintaining “sufficient flexibility to teach to the needs of their communities, and instead have to follow narrower, year-by-year content based solely on the chronological age of students.”
“We need to talk about risk and that's crucial, but we also need to talk about the joy of sexuality so that in the future, young people have a positive sense of themselves, their bodies and that power to say this relationship is healthy or not healthy.”
She also questioned whether students were interviewed as part of the Ministry’s development process.
Key research
The following research highlights discussion and evidence that may be useful when writing submissions.
Dixon et. al. examined common issues delivering RSE in their 2023 article, What would it take for relationships and sexuality education to be enacted meaningfully and responsively? Provocations informed by New Zealand policy and teachers’ perspectives. This groups teacher survey responses and asks policy questions under five themes: community consultation, teacher practice inconsistencies, lack of time and status for RSE, senior secondary education, and teacher capacity inconsistencies.
In 2015, the Education Review Office evaluated how well schools promoted and supported student wellbeing through sexuality education. It noted that pornography is recognised internationally as an increasingly accepted and prevalent aspect of young people’s sexuality experiences. It then highlighted concerns that pornography was one of the least well covered aspects of RSE in the curriculum pre-2020.
The Classifications Office released a report ‘Growing up with porn: insights from young New Zealanders’. It provides an in-depth understanding of young people’s experiences with porn and the impact this may have on relationships. It found that young people want information about porn to be part of sexuality education in schools as they believe education is the best way to deal with the potential negative impacts of porn.
A report from Waikato Queer Youth and Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura makes recommendations on teaching Rainbow-inclusive RSE. It emphasises that RSE must include discussion of diverse Rainbow identities and relationships. This should include a safe and welcoming teaching environment with wrap-around support for Rainbow young people, with discussions of consent, peer pressure, and healthy relationships in a Rainbow-specific context.
Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa (formerly Family Planning) released a 2022 report on New Zealand secondary school teachers’ perspectives on teaching Relationships and Sexuality Education. It found teachers lack time, access to professional development, senior support, ‘status’ for RSE as a subject, and whole-of-school consistency when delivering RSE. Many teachers commented that most senior students do not study health at NCEA level and do not have meaningful RSE.
A research article by Fitzpatrick et. al. (2021): Relationships and sexuality education: Key research informing New Zealand curriculum policy summarises key thinking and research that informed the 2020 RSE guidance. It justifies the framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Indigenous knowledges and human rights, attention to issues of bullying and inclusion, and the responsibility of schools to address gender and sexual diversity. It stresses the importance of including mātauranga Māori in RSE:
“Research in Māori education is clear that Māori students are more successful at school when ‘being Māori’ is affirmed and Māori epistemologies and practices are visible and embedded in the work undertaken.”
Fitzpatrick et al. (2021) also summarises key points of a research article by Le Grice and Braun (2018): Indigenous (Māori) sexual health psychologies in New Zealand: delivering culturally congruent sexuality education - [abstract only]. This article was central to the development of the 2020 guidelines. It maps Māori sexual health psychologies with mātauranga Māori to demonstrate that ‘school-based sexuality education holds potential [for] decolonising notions of Māori sexuality, relationships and reproduction’. It similarly suggests that schools explore whakapapa and pūrākau, discuss contemporary issues using kaupapa Māori, and learn about the history of the word takatāpui.
An article by Cammock et. al. (2023) examines Pacific high school students’ experiences of sexual and reproductive health education in Aotearoa New Zealand. It explores how efforts to deliver culturally appropriate sexuality education to Pacific youth are hindered by lack of resources, and cultural sensitivities and taboos. It discusses lack of tailored RSE in school settings, the concept of sex before marriage, home discussions of RSE, the need for connection with peers and educators, and pornography and social media use.
Related Media
Compulsory consent education proposed for schools, RNZ, 18.04.2025
Consultation starts on new draft sexuality education framework, RNZ, 15.04.2025
Schools ‘in limbo’ after removal of relationship and sexuality guidelines, The Spinoff, 14.03.2025
Sex education curriculum to be reviewed after critical report, RNZ, 10.12.2024
Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill receives Royal Assent
The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill received Royal Assent on 7 April 2025. Section 7AA set out specific duties for the Chief Executive to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. Read our 3-part part series on the repeal of 7AA.
A departmental report was prepared by Oranga Tamariki that summarised submissions on the Bill and made recommendations to the Social Services and Community Select Committee (the Committee) about the Bill. The report stated that the Committee received 3748 submissions in total, including 2045 unique submissions and 1703 form submissions or petitions. In addition, the Committee heard 117 oral submissions between 29 July and 7 August 2024. Of the total submissions, 1377 supported the Bill (36.7%), 2282 submissions opposed the Bill (60.9%). Eighty-nine submissions had no discernible view (2.4%).
The report noted that [outside of Section 7AA]:
“There are no other provisions in the Act that provide for the establishment of strategic partnerships or for mandatory public reporting on measures taken to reduce disparities for Māori children and young people in state care. These activities would become operational matters and Oranga Tamariki would pursue strategic partnerships and include the measures in existing reporting mechanisms. However, as these would be operational and not a statutory obligation, the change could lead to a decrease in trust and confidence among whānau and communities that work with Oranga Tamariki.” (Para. 49, pg. 20).
The report recommended that alongside repeal of section 7AA; the Committee consider inserting:
- clauses equivalent to subsections 7AA(2)(c), 7AA(3) and 7AA(4) regarding strategic partnerships in other parts of the Act; and
- clauses equivalent to subsections 7AA(5) and 7AA(6) regarding reporting duties of the chief executive in other parts of the Act.
Subsequent to these recommendations, the Bill was amended to retain aspects of section 7AA that related to the obligations on the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities. However, the Committee declined to amend the Bill to retain the aspects of 7AA that related to reporting duties of the chief executive, stating that:
“A majority of us are satisfied that there are a number of mechanisms for reporting outcomes for tamariki Māori that remain, produced by both Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor. There are also reporting requirements that the chief executive is held to, such as providing any information requested by the Monitor.”
Following the passing of the legislation, Children’s Minister and sponsor of the Bill, Karen Chhour, stated that:
“This Bill will allow Oranga Tamariki to focus on its primary duty first, which is the care and protection of young people, making sure they are safe from harm. While Section 7AA was well-intended, it also resulted in children being put second. As the responsible Minister I could not accept or excuse this fact. We can no longer deny that section 7AA has led to confusion and conflict in a system that cannot afford to get such crucial care decisions wrong.”
VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai issued a media release in response to the repeal of 7AA. In it, CEO Tracie Shipton commented that young care-experienced people were disappointed that the change had gone ahead, saying:
“The argument for the repeal was the fact that section 7AA caused confusion in the decision making process which meant that safety wasn’t prioritised, but if you look at the Act it explicitly states that safety is paramount. […] Any failure to ensure safety isn’t a legislation issue, it’s a training and practice issue.”
Following the final reading of the Bill in Parliament on the 3rd of April, Te Pati Māori released a statement saying that they had “sent a letter to the Governor General urging her to block the repeal of Section 7AA because it is a serious threat to the lives of our mokopuna.”
Oranga Tamariki removes operational targets for placing children in care with whānau and investment with Māori/iwi organisations
Relatedly, Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has announced that Oranga Tamariki have removed their 58% target for placing children in care with wider family/whānau and their minimum 23% target for the proportion of investment with Māori/Iwi organisations.
The Minster commented that:
“These outdated departmental targets go against the ‘need not race’ directive, and there are also concerns with whether it is appropriate for this self-classification of being a Māori/Iwi organisation to be prioritised over the quality and efficacy of the services being provided.”
Oranga Tamariki consulting on 2025 Long-Term Insights Briefing
Oranga Tamariki is seeking submissions on their draft 2025 Long-Term Insights Briefing. The Briefing’s focus is, “How can we better prevent, respond to, and enable healing from, child maltreatment between now and 2040?”. This is the second round of consultation and seeks feedback on the Draft Briefing. The first round was used to decide the Briefing’s topic and method of investigated. The consultation page provides more information on making a submission, including optional guiding questions. The consultation is open to everybody, and submissions must be emailed to LTIB@ot.govt.nz by 5pm 12 May 2025.
Independent review of the Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, final report released
Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora | Ministry of Social Development have released the Independent statutory review of the Oranga Tamariki oversight system: final report (2025). The review was undertaken by MartinJenkins and evaluates the effectiveness of the two main pieces of legislation that underpin the Oranga Tamariki system in Aotearoa:
- the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022
- the Children and Young People's Commission Act 2022.
A Child Friendly Summary is also available alongside the full Final Report.
Experiences of care in Aotearoa: agency compliance with the National Care Standards and Related Matters Regulations 2023/2024
Aroturuki Tamariki | Independent Children's Monitor (ICM) reports annually on whether agencies with custody and care responsibilities are complying with the National Care Standards (NCS) Regulations and whether they are making a difference for children and young people in care. The report on agency compliance with the National Care Standards Regulations for the period 1 July 2023 - 30 June 2024 was published in February 2025. It found that children and young people are still not receiving the minimum standard of care required by the NCS Regulations. Oranga Tamariki, Open Home Foundation, Barnardos, and Kōkiri Marae have custody and care responsibilities. Oranga Tamariki had custody of around 99 percent of the 5,722 children in care during the 2023/24 reporting period.
Bill unbinding Treaty principles, Oranga Tamariki passes final reading, RNZ, 03.04.2025
Iwi Chairs oppose 7AA axing, Waatea News, 09.08.2024
Waitangi Tribunal warns Government’s Oranga Tamariki policy will cause harm, Stuff, 29.04.2024
National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges | Ngā Whare Whakaruruhau o Aotearoa (NCIWR) have released a new report, Traumatic Brain Injury and Intimate Partner Violence in Aotearoa, that examines the unseen traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in women who have been physically assaulted by their partners or ex-partners. It highlights the high prevalence of brain injuries for intimate partner violence (IPV) victims and associated challenges with safety and recovery. The report is part of their wider multi-phase research project, Safer When, Safety How?.
NCIWR surveyed 1707 women and non-binary victims about their experiences of IPV and help-seeking. The majority (1328) had been physically assaulted by their partners, 10 percent (138) of whom reported having a known TBI caused by their partner’s use of violence. IPV-inflicted TBI is often undiagnosed, so NCIWR estimates the actual prevalence amongst the report’s sample is likely far higher. To explore how those with TBI experienced risk, support, and safety, the report compares responses from those with a known TBI with responses from respondents overall. As well as survey data, the report also draws upon risk data gathered from clients engaging with Women’s Refuge services.
The report found victims with a TBI experienced amplified and extended risks and harms associated with IPV, both during the relationship and after separation. Dr Ang Jury, CEO of NCIWR, said in the report’s media release:
“It is clear from this report that the likelihood of women sustaining a TBI from their partners’ abuse is much higher than we had thought. And this is not a bruise that heals quickly – these consequences last days, weeks and even years and have serious impacts on how a victim can function day to day and the type of support they receive.”
Prevalence of IPV-inflicted TBI
Women’s Refuge risk data gathered from 1250 new clients in 2024 shows 77.5% have been physically assaulted by their abusers. Of those:
- 57% are hit or punched in the head by their abusers,
- 69.8% are pushed or shoved by their abusers, and
- 39.8% are strangled or suffocated.
Of those hit or punched in the head:
- 26.7% lost consciousness,
- 36.7% experienced physical symptoms like head/neck pain, fatigue, unsteadiness, or problems hearing or seeing in the days afterwards, and
- 30.4% experienced new difficulties with concentration, memory, or emotion regulation in the days afterwards.
Prevalence of TBI amongst IPV victims is high, but under-identification of it complicates prevalence estimates. The report notes that victims are often unable to seek medical care, including assessment, diagnosis, or treatment for TBI.
Dr Ang Jury said:
“Because the connection between family violence and TBI is not widely understood, many women will not have TBI diagnosed by their GPs and may not even know what is happening themselves. Additionally, many will never even get the opportunity – over a quarter of women reported that their access to medical care was blocked by their abuser.”
Key conclusions
The report draws key conclusions that should inform best practice when working with victims of IPV and those with TBI. It makes recommendations for specialist agencies involved because of IPV, healthcare services, services that determine and enable access to resources after an injury, and services involved with victims.
Intimate partner violence and traumatic brain injury are experienced in tandem
Victims with TBI reported worse impacts and worse outcomes in every measurable way compared with the overall group of respondents. Their comments underlined the immense toll that IPV-inflicted TBI took on their health, lives, and futures.
The report states: “In these victims’ lives, TBI and IPV do not simply co-exist; they are mechanised by one another and ultimately service abusers’ interests. It is therefore essential to name the abuser as the origin point for both, and as the instigator of the costs and consequences that IPV and TBI in tandem accrue within the victim’s life.”
Effective support must account for both the violence and the TBI
The presence of IPV affects how someone might recover from a TBI. Treatment must be designed for an IPV context, accounting for all challenges a victim faces, and may need to be more comprehensive or intensive to achieve recovery.
Healthcare providers must proactively enquire about head injury even when it is not the main concern victims are presenting with. Likewise, those responding to the violence must facilitate timely healthcare access after the disclosure of any assault involving the head, face, neck, or spine.
As IPV is the leading cause of TBI for women, the report says that failure to recognise and respond to IPV-inflicted TBI “perpetuates the gendered inequity of treatment… In short, the current landscape of TBI identification and treatment in Aotearoa, and internationally, appears oriented to the context of men’s TBI”.
Services can work better for women with IPV-inflicted TBI
Services need to identify IPV-inflicted TBI when it occurs and link the injury to the violence a victim experiences. They should advocate for and resource victims while addressing both the TBI and the IPV in empathetic, comprehensive, and sustainable ways. Some of the recommendations include:
- Specialist agencies responding to IPV can facilitate victim access to TBI healthcare and can support them by explaining the backdrop of IPV to healthcare providers.
- Health services can ask about assault and TBI, even when there are other possible explanations for a victim’s emotional or physical symptoms.
- After-injury support services can enable access to compensation, in-home support, funding for childcare, and rehabilitative pathways.
- Services involved with victims can help by modifying their agency’s approach to make it as feasible, easy, and sustainable for victims as possible.
Traumatic brain injuries in te ao Māori
NCIWR’s report notes that wāhine Māori with a TBI reported feeling less connected to whānau, whakapapa, reo, tikanga, and/or culture than they did before the abuse started, at higher rates than overall Māori respondents.
For discussion on traumatic brain injuries from a te ao Māori perspective, see the following research from Dr Hinemoa Elder and colleagues:
- Elder, H. (2012). ‘Tuku iho, he tapu te upoko - From our ancestors, the head is sacred’: Indigenous theory building and therapeutic framework development for Māori children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury [Doctoral dissertation, Massey University]
- Elder, H. (2012): An examination of Māori tamariki (child) and taiohi (adolescent) traumatic brain injury within a global cultural context. Australasian Psychiatry, 20(1), 20-23 – Abstract only
- Elder, H., & Kersten, P. (2015). Whakawhiti kōrero, a method for the development of a cultural assessment tool, Te Waka Kuaka, in Māori traumatic brain injury. Behavioural Neurology, 2015(1), 137402
Other NZ and Australian research on IPV and TBI
An article from King. et. al. (2023) - Intimate partner violence reporting and assessment of traumatic brain injuries and strangulation by a New Zealand hospital health service examines TBI assessments for IPV victims in an NZ hospital. It finds that less than 1% of IPV survivors had a TBI assessment, only 0.6% had a strangulation assessment, and only 0.5% had a referral for brain injury rehabilitation services. Reported loss of consciousness and strangulations caused by IPV were high in this hospital setting, yet they were rarely assessed, and Māori had the highest incidence per ethnic population of partner-inflicted TBI presenting to the hospital at 81.8 per 100,000 population.
An evidence brief from Women’s Health New South Wales - Non-fatal strangulation and acquired brain injury in the context of sexual violence (2024) - states: “Women’s brain injuries do not get the attention they deserve”. It discusses how brain injuries are popularly understood as injuries sustained by men during contact sports, which overlooks women’s injuries and experiences. The report focuses on non-fatal strangulation as part of a pattern of escalating IPV causing brain injury and its co-occurrence with other forms of physical IPV. It notes strangulation is both a potentially fatal act of violence and a key marker of escalating risk for further serious harm.
A qualitative study from Wills, E. and Fitts, M.: Listening to the Voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women in Regional and Remote Australia About Traumatic Brain Injury from Family Violence looks at the IPV and TBI experiences of Indigenous women in Australia and finds a range of gaps in healthcare and housing supports, highlighting the significant investment needed to develop responsive and appropriate pathways of care in regional and remote areas.
A factsheet from Tahū o te Ture | Ministry of Justice: Non-fatal strangulation/suffocation in New Zealand (2024) promotes understanding of the severity of non-fatal strangulation/suffocation (NFSS) and its links to intimate partner violence. It uses New Zealand data from risk assessments, case studies, and population surveys as well as some Australian data to report some measures of NFSS prevalence.
'Significant gaps' in how domestic violence victims checked for brain injuries, RNZ, 17.10.2023
Domestic violence survivors 'left hanging' without support for brain injuries, Stuff, 12.03.2022
Life-changing brain injuries in domestic violence survivors going unrecognised, Stuff, 08.01.2022
The New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse was launched in 2005 in association with Te Rito: New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy. We have been the national resource centre for family violence information for nearly 20 years.
Over time, our work has broadened to include sexual violence, structural violence and other forms of violence, recognising that violence and the solutions to violence do not conform to silos. It was time to change our name to reflect how we have changed.
We are now Vine – Violence information Aotearoa.
Alongside our new name, we have now launched our new website vine.org.nz –all our original content has a new home and there are some exciting new sections to explore.
Drawing inspiration from the kūmara vine
Our new name is inspired by the idea of the kūmara vine, a metaphor from te ao Māori for communication and sharing of information. Like the kūmara vine, we are here to connect and communicate to create new growth. We share research, analysis and resources about sexual violence and family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand to help drive positive change. We are an independent resource hub that curates, connects and shares research and information with people working to end violence and grow oranga.
Vines also have a universal resonance and often symbolise growth, as they continuously extend and reach out, representing the idea of development and progress. Their ability to intertwine and connect different elements also makes them a symbol of connection and unity.
Likewise, our new colour palette is also inspired by kūmara and the kūmara vine, using colours that are earthy, grounded and drawn from the natural environment.
Our work: Oranga through understanding
Vine supports oranga by providing our audiences with greater insights and understandings of family violence and sexual violence in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Informing policy, supporting research and empowering practice so that mokopuna can flourish and all people can live with dignity, respect and freedom from violence.
The new name, branding and website represent the culmination of a huge amount of discussion and thinking about our role and purpose as an organisation. Our Vine team, our wonderful Advisory Rōpū and other key partners in our sector have all contributed so much to where we have landed. We have tried very hard to create a new look and feel that represents our values and resonates with communities, without being appropriative.
We also want to acknowledge the support of Studio Unlimited and Double who have worked alongside us to bring our new identity and website to life. We so excited to be Vine and look forward to our next chapter as an organisation.
Submissions open for Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill
The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill seeks to address stalking, which can pose a threat of serious harm to victims. The Bill proposes to:
- create a stalking and harassment offence in the Crimes Act 1961
- introduce new aggravating factors that recognise the unique circumstances associated with stalking and breaching a restraining order in the Sentencing Act 2002
- expand the definition of psychological abuse to include stalking in the Family Violence Act 2018
- prevent self-represented defendants charged with the new offence from being able to personally cross-examine alleged victims.
The closing date for submissions is 11.59pm, Thursday 13 February 2025.
The Bill passed its first reading on 12 December 2024 and was introduced by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith:
“Existing harassment laws haven’t kept pace with trends in this dangerous area. Since I announced this Bill, many victims and advocates have talked about the need to have this law in place as soon as possible. The Bill has been referred to the Justice Select Committee and I encourage anyone who has been affected by stalking to have their say."
Definition of stalking in the Bill
The Bill defines stalking as “a pattern of behaviour” where a person engages in three separate stalking actions within a 12-month period while knowing their actions are “likely to cause fear or distress”.
It specifies the following acts as stalking behaviours:
- watching, following, loitering near, or obstructing
- recording or tracking
- contacting or communicating
- damaging, devaluing, moving, entering, or interfering with taonga or property (including pets)
- damaging or undermining reputation, opportunities, or relationships
- acting in any way that would cause fear or distress to a reasonable person.
These acts can be done directly or indirectly to another person, or any close friends or family members of that person (when targeted due to their relationship with the main victim). These acts can be done personally by an individual, or by an individual via a third-party individual, institution, or organisation. The act may be facilitated “by or through any means whatsoever (for example, tracking devices, digital applications, spyware, drones, or the use of artificial intelligence)”.
The definition provided by the Bill covers most acts included in the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children and the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges’ 2022 policy report on a potential stalking law for Aotearoa. Behaviours not specifically included in the Bill include:
- Implicit or explicit threats
- Leaving unwanted items
- Disturbing sleep, peace, privacy
- Doxing
- Using a victim’s disability to harm
- Vexatious litigation (or legal harassment).
The frequency of contact may itself distinguish the behaviour as threatening, for example, repeated phone calls, or calls late at night. The report also notes that proxy stalking via children is particularly common.
Public interest in stalking law reform
Public interest in stalking law reform grew in response to the high-profile murder of Farzana Yaqubi in December 2022, who complained to police weeks beforehand that she was being stalked.
The Independent Policy Conduct Authority found the police response to be inadequate. Key findings include:
- The initial assessment matrix Police use to assess allegations of stalking is not fit-for-purpose
- Police did not consider cultural and religious factors that influenced how Ms Yaqubi engaged with them
- Police did not provide her with appropriate support
- Police failed to ensure significant matters raised in her formal statement were immediately addressed
- Police failed to link Ms Yaqubi’s file and the file of another young girl who was also being threatened by the same man, so did not accurately record the full picture of risk posed.
Development of the Bill was supported by family violence subject matter experts (FV SMEs) within Te Tāhū Hauora | Health Quality & Safety Commission who made several recommendations for stalking legislation. They recommended:
- Any stalking legislation be based on a comprehensive understanding of violence, as described in the Family Violence Act (2018), including an understanding of patterns of harmful behaviours
- Family violence responders are supported to take heed of the concerns of family and whānau members who report violence
- Consideration should also be given to supporting and providing a whole of family, whole of whānau response where stalking is evident.
What makes anti-stalking legislation effective
Awatea Mita from Aotearoa Free From Stalking (AFFS) said that the proposed anti-stalking and harassment legislation currently before Parliament is not as robust as it could be due to the failure to consult properly with Māori. Agencies with statutory responsibilities have often failed Māori, who now feel they must look out for themselves:
“So, it’s building up our communities to be able to address stalking and harassment… but this is in the face of a lack of funding, to be able to carry out all these actions. And so, what we would also hope is that at some point there will be more resourcing for our whānau who are being harmed by stalking.”
Alison Towns of the Coalition for Safety of Women and Children told Midday Report how important it was that the bill talked about a pattern of behaviour:
“One act might appear quite trivial, but when it's seen in the context of the behaviour of the stalker, it has a totally different meaning, so it's important to look at it as a pattern of behaviour…"
"I'm not convinced that they're going to include threats in there… and threats are very much a part of stalking. It may be that they're considering threats elsewhere in the Crimes Act and don't need to be in this stalking legislation, but they're so much a part of what is stalking that I think they need to be included."
She noted that we have poor data on how common stalking is, but overseas data suggested "between 15 and 20 percent of women are stalked and between five and 10 percent of men… People from indigenous cultures are stalked much more than others."
How to have your say
Aotearoa Free From Stalking (AFFS) have created a submission content guide where they have identified a few strengths and weaknesses of the current legislation.
You can:
Make your own public submission by 11:59pm Thurs 13 February. Your submission will be published alongside your name, so please be aware that anyone may see it.
Complete an anonymous parliamentary survey that will help inform the select committee by Thurs 13 February.
Participate in AFFS’s secure anonymous 45-minute questionnaire to inform the Auckland Women’s Centre/Aotearoa Free From Stalking submission on the bill by Sunday 9 February.
More information on your options and a formal submission template can be found in AFFS’s “have your say” options guide.
Zeni’s experience is extreme, but it isn’t rare, The Spinoff, 25.11.24
Police could have stopped stalker who murdered Farzana Yaqubi, victim advocate says, RNZ, 18.04.24
Te Aorerekura second Action Plan launched
Te Aorerekura is a 25-year national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence in Aotearoa through coordinated government and community action. The strategy was launched in December 2021 along with the first Action Plan, which concluded in December 2023.
The second Te Aorerekura Action Plan 2025 - 2030, Breaking the Cycle, has seven focus areas it will deliver over the next five years:
- Investing and commissioning well
- Keeping people safe
- Stopping violence
- Protecting children and young people
- Strengthening our workforce
- Taking action on sexual violence
- Preventing violence before it starts
During the launch of the five-year plan, Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence Karen Chhour outlined that it would be divided into two sections, with the first two years focusing on investing and commissioning well, keeping people safe, and stopping violence. Progress would then be assessed and focus refreshed for the remaining three years.
Investing and commissioning well includes:
- Taking a social investment approach to better map the impact of spending
- Reviewing current spending for future investment
- Improving how contracts in the sector are managed, including reducing duplication and increasing coordination.
Keeping people safe includes:
- Strengthening multi-agency responses by bringing providers together to deliver sustainable safety services to victim-survivors
- Using the recently released multi-agency response report from Te Puna Aonui as an important baseline to identify opportunities for improvement.
Stopping violence includes:
- Introducing new anti-stalking legislation
- Reviewing mandatory non-violence programmes for those subject to protection orders
- Rolling out a new family violence service for men called Te Huringa ō te Ao
- Extending rehabilitation services
- Creating a single ACC/MSD platform for sexual violence services
- Continuing to develop kaupapa Māori sexual violence services
Minister Chhour stated:
“[That] is what this Action Plan is all about: delivering practical improvements in key parts of the system, with a focus on families and whānau who we are here to serve. We want to do more of what works to break the cycle of violence. This Plan takes a different approach to the first Action Plan and is centred on government doing fewer things, more comprehensively.”
In response to the release of the plan, Women’s Refuge Chief Executive Dr Ang Jury told RNZ that while there were things in the plan she found “useful”, there needed to be far more investment and focus on prevention work. "It's about stopping that situation occurring in the first place… It does not have to be like this, we know it doesn't have to be like this but we keep allowing the conditions that enable it." She noted this plan comes at a time when police have begun stepping back from family harm incidents: "We're seeing police not responding to incidents where they previously would, where there is no risk of physical harm. It's not spread right across the country yet, but certainly we are starting to see some differences."
Similarly, Grenville Hendricks spoke on behalf of Shine, saying: “We should be putting more money into prevention. We should be spending a lot more money on the children and those that are impacted by family violence because they become the next generation."
Closing Report for Action Plan 1.0: Reporting and reflecting on the first Te Aorerekura Action Plan
Delivery of the first Te Aorerekura Action Plan (2021-2023) has now been completed, and the Closing Report for Action Plan 1.0 reflects on Te Puna Aonui’s experiences during delivery. Key achievements include:
- Production of key reports including Family Violence and Sexual Violence Service Gaps, Outcomes and Measurements Framework, and Family Violence Workforce Capability Framework
- $188 million secured for family and sexual violence initiatives
- Foundational training for 550 court-related workforce members to ensure safe, consistent, and culturally appropriate staff responses to disclosures of family or sexual violence
- Regional partnerships for kaupapa Māori service design with ACC, Te Puni Kōkiri
- Launch of Family Violence Online Help Tools, Campaign for Action on Family Violence and other prevention initiatives
- Programmes trialled and expanded for population groups like Waitematā Safeguarding Adults from Abuse pilot, Social and Emotional Learning pilot.
Appendix 1 of the closing report outlines the status of the first action plan’s 40 commitments. 23 are completed, while 17 are ongoing. Work still in progress includes:
- Continuous capacity building and support for Te Aorerekura, including investment planning and improvement of learning systems
- Developing new practice guidelines for participants in court proceedings and case management systems for responders
- Ongoing community engagement for collective implementation of programmes and local capacity building for primary prevention of violence
- Specialist sexual violence framework development and community mobilisation
- Development and delivery of family and sexual violence prevention initiatives, and kaupapa Māori sexual violence elimination and healing programmes
- Development of tools and curriculums to support healthy relationship education for young people
- Delivery of violence prevention programmes for ethnic communities
- Delivering safeguarding responses for disabled and vulnerable adults.
Understanding the current state of Family Violence: Multi-Agency Responses
The Multi-Agency Responses report outlines the current state of multi-agency responses. It sought to understand the current state of each local crisis family violence response to strengthen existing processes and structures to deliver safer, more effective responses.
Steps taken to complete the current state analysis:
- Te Puna Aonui reviewed existing evaluations and reviews of multi-agency responses
- A cross-agency advisory group (Te Puna Aonui, Ministry of Social Development, NZ Police, and Oranga Tamariki) agreed the scope and further information required to complete the analysis
- Decision taken to gather the same information from all sites
- Decision taken to look at responses through the Safety Assessment Meeting (SAM) table and equivalent groups, which limits information gathered (no cases of sexual assault or assault on children, but family violence where children are present is included)
- Data gathering sessions involved a mix of people from local sites, online or in-person between 23 April and 13 May 2024.
Key insights:
- 40 sites across the country operate in diverse ways and have adapted to suit local communities
- Weekly case volumes, number of attending organisations (government, non-government, and iwi), number of available specialist and generalist services, number of response organisations, number of referral organisations, and frequency of meetings varies across all sites
- There is a need for balance between national consistency and local innovation
- Some sites work uniquely with iwi partners to best serve whānau Māori experiencing family violence
- The lion’s share of work undertaken to respond to family violence happens outside of multi-agency meetings, but most sites were keen to ensure that the value of meetings was understood and preserved.
Related Media
Family violence funding review could see services lose out – critics, RNZ, 16.12.2024
Government launches new plan for reducing family and sexual violence, RNZ, 15.12.2024
Family, sexual violence: New action plan released by Government, New Zealand Herald, 15.12.2024
Government to review $1.3b in family and sexual violence spending, Stuff, 15.12.2024
The holiday season can be a very difficult time for people who may be at risk from family violence and/or sexual violence. Support services for people experiencing violence are always available, even during the holidays. Contact details for support services are on our website.
The website Are You Ok has information about how to get support for people experiencing violence. There is information to get help for yourself, friends, family or whānau, or your children.
For people using violence or worried about their behaviour, find information, live chat and links to support services at Change is Possible. This website also has information for people who want to support someone who might be using violence.
Shine have created key messages that employers can share with employees ahead of the holidays: Domestic Violence & the Holiday Season - key messages for your employees.
We hope that you are able to take some time out to be with your family or whānau and rest and rejuvenate over the holidays. We look forward to continuing to work alongside you to eliminate and prevent violence in 2025.
Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health (MOH) have released their evidence brief and position statement on the use of puberty blockers for gender identity issues.
The Position Statement sets out expectations of greater precaution in the prescribing of puberty blockers to transgender young people. It also advised deferring the prescription of puberty blockers to transgender young people to interprofessional teams experienced in administering gender-affirming healthcare to transgender children.
The MOH has also announced that it has been asked by Government to hold a public consultation on whether additional restrictions are needed on the use of puberty blockers in young people with gender-related health needs including “…additional safety measures for puberty blockers, such as regulations under the Medicines Act.”
MOH stated “In particular, the Ministry seeks input from organisations that represent people who may be affected by safety measures or that may be involved in how safety measures are used in practice.” Submissions are due 20 January 2025.
Community responses
Gender Minorities Aotearoa (GMA), a national transgender organisation, have undertaken an analysis of the MOH’s review of the use of puberty blocker, which found that the MOH's Evidence Brief, Position Statement, and consultation are discriminatory. They argue that the MOH is adding extra scrutiny to gender-affirming treatment for young people only if they are transgender: “Creating further regulations and restrictions specifically for transgender people is sex based discrimination.”
GMA highlight the double standard in the provision of gender affirming healthcare:
“Blocking hormones during puberty is normal. It is the usual medical approach to children with unwanted sex characteristics. Unless those children are transgender.”
GMA also highlight methodological concerns including that the initial framing of the MOH review’s scope focused on puberty blockers effects on general wellbeing and “gender dysphoria”, and not on the physiological changes the medicines are sought for. Further concerns include:
- That MOH “downgraded studies that looked at what transgender people said about their wellbeing, and didn’t see it as good evidence if transgender people’s bodies changed, or if they said the treatment worked and was helpful.”
- MOH claims that “evidence about gender dysphoria being reduced by puberty blockers was bad evidence if the researchers didn’t also check if psychological support, family support and school support could fix “gender dysphoria.””
- “[s]tudies were assessed as “low quality” (or “at risk of bias”) if a majority of the transgender children receiving puberty blockers had a supportive environment.”
GMA have also criticised the MOH’s decision to hold a public consultation on this matter. They highlight that the MOH “does not use a public consultation process to decide the medical care of any other group.” They also draw attention to the risk associated with holding a public consultation given the heightened interest of the “large international population of anti-transgender extremist groups.”
Jennifer Shields, the president of the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA), commented that, “[i]t’s highly unusual and inappropriate to engage in public consultation on a medical matter, particularly for a minority group already exposed to increasing levels of hatred and disinformation…[t]his process is discriminatory, already doing harm, and has the potential to do massive and irreversible damage to a generation of trans children.”
The MOH has also been criticised by both GMA and PATHA for the inadequacy of its direct consultation with the rainbow community. They, alongside 24 other representatives from rainbow community organisations were invited to a single, shared 30-minute consultation meeting which was later extended to 60 minutes.
The MOH's brief was delayed a number of times in part to take the findings of the Cass Review in the UK into account. For more information on methodological flaws of The Cass Review, see An Evidence-Based Critique of “The Cass Review” on Gender-affirming Care for Adolescent Gender Dysphoria (2024) published by the Yale School of Medicine, as well as the British Medical Association’s call to immediately halt the implementation of the reviews findings.
Resources for making a submission
Several organisations have produced resources for making submissions on the MOH’s consultation. Submissions are due 20 January 2025.
InsideOUT Kōaro, a national charity providing education, resources, consultation, and support for anything concerning Rainbow and Takatāpui communities, have published their Submission guide for puberty blocker restrictions.
Te Ngākau Kahukura, an organisation working to make communities, environments, and systems safe and inclusive for Rainbow people, have compiled a list of resources to help people understand the issue and to support them to make a submission.
GMA have also provided information and advice on the consultation towards the end of their analysis of the puberty blocker review. For additional information on puberty blockers, see their primer Puberty blockers and differing ethical perspectives (2024).
Emily Writes has written on the MOH’s consultation and has provided information on writing an effective submission in, How you can stand up for trans kids being targeted by this government.
See also the publication of the review into Queensland’s gender services, which found they delivered safe and evidence-based care.
Related News
The Education Review Office (ERO) has published Let’s talk about it: Review of relationships and sexuality education (2024). In their media release, ERO shared that they found "too much inconsistency in relationships and sexuality education.” Underscoring its importance, they write “Relationships and sexuality education plays an important role in teaching students to identify and reject misinformation and harmful attitudes.”
The media release also shares ERO’s findings and concerns about the existing consultation process schools must currently undertake with regards to relationships and sexuality education (RSE). ERO found that the diverging views held by parents and students as well as between male and female students, and mothers and fathers, made consultation difficult. To address these concerns, “ERO is also calling for schools to be required to inform and explain to parents what will be taught in relationships and sexuality education, rather than consult.”
The Government has welcomed the ERO report and its findings that the delivery and content of the current RSE curriculum is inconsistent and is, in some instances, failing to meeting the need of student. In their response to the report, Education Minister, Erica Stanford, announced that the MOE will be developing a new RSE curriculum, stating “[a] draft of the topic areas to be taught will be available from Term 1 with consultation open later in 2025.”
Related Media
Puberty blockers: Health Ministry releases evidence brief, 1News, 21.11.2024
Careful approach to puberty blockers – Expert Reaction, Science Media Centre, 21.11.2024
No results found.
Please try different keywords or filter options.
Subscribe to our Pānui and our News and Events mailing lists
Never miss an update! Receive the latest news and event information directly to your inbox.