The ministry replaces the highly criticised Child, Youth and Family, and has been billed by the Government and Social Development Minister Anne Tolley as a total overhaul of that agency's policies and practices. The changes are certainly comprehensive.
The major focus is on a proactive rather than reactive system, which aims to prevent children entering care in the first place by early identification and intervention.
For those who do enter the system, they will find a new ''child-centred'' approach. Indeed, children and young people and those who have been through the state care system have helped design the new service.
The age of state care protection rises. Children will remain in state care until they turn 18. It is planned to extend support to youths up to the age of 21, and 25 in discretionary cases. This means vulnerable youths, who may still be at school or finding their footing as young adults, will not suddenly find themselves turfed out without a lifeline.
These are just some of the many changes, implemented largely in line with the 81 recommendations made in 2015 by the Modernising Child Youth and Family Expert Panel (which included Dunedin professor Richie Poulton).
After years of horror stories and confronting headlines, endless reports, reviews and expert panels, the new agency at last offers tangible hope of a new dawn.
The Government deserves credit for such a significant change in approach and putting its money where its mouth is - to the tune of about $200million of new investment.
The systemic problems with Child, Youth and Family cannot be laid at the feet of the current Government alone. Mrs Tolley has consistently shown a real willingness to confront the problems, acknowledge the trauma many in state care have had to endure, and the appalling outcomes for many. She has sought expert advice and been prepared to implement wholesale changes.
Those working at the coalface within such a faulty system must be acknowledged, too. Their work has often been thankless and unseen, yet it is they who can be blamed when things go wrong. It is hoped they too will benefit from the changes through better support, and in turn will have more capacity to support their young and vulnerable charges.
Of course the proof will be in the pudding. There is a four-year timespan for implementation of the new model of state care. Given such entrenched problems, it would be remarkable if there were no teething problems. However, if there is meaningful change - both in reducing the need for state care and the quality of the care provided - that will constitute a significant legacy for the Government.
Given the Government has ruled out an inquiry into the abuse of children in state care, and a public apology, the onus is firmly on it to make a difference now and for future generations of vulnerable children.
It will be important, as well, to see results at local level, not just words from on high. The news the Will St, Abbotsford, residence for vulnerable children will reopen is welcome, then. The residence - used to house youth offenders - has been idle because caregivers have not been appointed to it. This has meant youth offenders, those aged under 17, have been forced to spend time in police custody or in youth justice centres as far away as Auckland.
Progress then is under way. Quality of care is the single most important measure, however. The Government must ensure the days of institutional damage to our most vulnerable children are well and truly consigned to history.
