Young people in state care will no longer have to leave home at the age of 17, and venture out into the big wide world.

Cabinet has just signed off on this.

The idea was floated back in April to increase the age to 21, and it's now being introduced as part of Anne Tolley's overhaul of care and protection.

The devil, as always, will be in the detail - but offering another four years of stability and security to some of our most vulnerable young people is surely a smart move.

Even with the perfect upbringing, 17 is very young to undergo an immediate transition into independence.

How did this come about? An independent panel of experts looked at young people up to the age of 21 who'd been through CYF care and came up with some alarming statistics.

Almost 90% were on a benefit. Around a quarter were on a benefit with a child. Almost 80% hadn't achieved NCEA level 2. And around 40% had had a community service.

So at 17, you will still be free to leave state care, but you don't have to.

You can stay there until you're 21, or you can bounce in and out if you chose.

What is significant about this, I think, is that it's a shift away from a 'crisis management' approach to vulnerable children.

CYF, historically, has placed an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. This moves the ambulance to the top of it.

Raising the age of care and support makes CYF more child-focused, because it switches the focus to one of prevention, and early intervention.

Given that almost 90% of children come out of care and immediately go on a benefit is evidence that the system as it is functioning right now is a failure.

What will it cost? Well, across the board the overhaul of the way we care for and protect vulnerable children in care will cost around $350 million.

Money will spent, I think.

It will take some time to see if what the minister is proposing will bring about genuine change and improve outcomes for kids in care, but is it not better to invest money now in the hope of improving outcomes, versus spending a lot of cash on the other side in benefits, homeless initiatives, and propping up the youth justice system?

Allowing kids to stay in care until they're 21 will cost more in the short term, but will hopefully, hopefully improve their life outcomes.