Some hail them as heroes, spelling out the hard truths nobody else wants to say out loud, while others see them as too wedded to their own opinions and blundering about in a forest where they are not willing to distinguish the wood from the trees.
But their unwavering conviction about their rightness can become a millstone when they are not prepared to entertain the idea there may be a different perspective and that another view may be valid.
Minister for Children Karen Chhour has drawn on her own traumatic childhood experience with state care to fuel her fervour for improving the lot of the country’s children.
As she says in her letter of priorities for the beleaguered child protection agency Oranga Tamariki, children deserve to wake up in the morning and feel safe and loved, and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children and young people is her top priority.
Nobody could argue against that sentiment, or that she has a tough portfolio where ministers of various stripes have held bold hopes for turning around our appalling child abuse statistics and improving the safety and quality of life for young people who end up in state care.
But, like other major messes in our midst, including the health system and the lack of affordable housing, real improvement will involve collaboration and a shared understanding about the problems and likely solutions.
Yelling your ideas from the front, ignoring other opinions and expecting everyone below will fall into step is foolish.
Last week Ms Chhour incurred the wrath of many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working with young people and their families when she said for too many years Oranga Tamariki had been "the cash cow for community service providers who say they will provide services, and then don’t".
This came as an increasing number of NGOs criticised the way the contracting process is being handled this year.
The contracts of 190 providers will be discontinued, with about 142 others receiving less money than last year.
The message from Ms Chhour and OT is that this is redistributing more than $500 million funding to ensure the best use of it, rather than anything which might be considered cuts to frontline services, but details are hazy.
Ms Chhour says there has been a lack of rigour from OT in the way contracts have been managed with some services banking money but not providing the services.
There was also duplication and the scrapping of some services reflected that.
Wanting value for money in the sector is laudable, but some services are saying they have been blindsided by the OT approach.
They considered they had delivered or even over-delivered services sought, say families they have been working with do not have alternative places to go, and there has been silence from OT about that.
As well, the chief children’s commissioner Dr Claire Achmad has said she sought documented evidence about how the OT decisions are being made so she could be assured children were at the centre of decision-making, but it had not been provided.
She also questioned Ms Chhour’s statement OT funding was to provide "for the care and protection of children in state care. Nothing more, nothing less".
As Dr Achmad pointed out, the law was clear the agency was also responsible for prevention of harm, and that by taking away some of the services, some safety nets would go.
Ms Chhour’s tough love approach and inclination to be combative rather than contemplative or collaborative, (which we have also seen in her defence of boot camps and the repeal of 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act) is not helping her cause.
