ps sept 2014 final all web

September/October 2014 Public Sector 1

J o u r n a l o f t h e I n s t i t u t e o f P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n N e w Z e a l a n d

Rāngai Tūmatanui

Public Sector is printed on an economically and environmentally responsible paper sourced from internationally certified Well Managed Forests and manufactured with EMAS accreditation (ISO 14001).

C O N T E N T S

Front cover image: Isolated portraits of business people, Photographer: FotolEdhar.

PUBLISHERThe Institute of Public Administration New ZealandPO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand Phone: +64 4 463 6940, Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ipanz.org.nzISSN 0110-5191 (Print)ISSN 1176-9831 (Online)The whole of the literary matter of Public Sector is copyright. Please contact the editor if you are interested in reproducing any Public Sector content.EDITORShelly Farr Biswell: [email protected]

CONTRIBUTORSJackie BlueLillian GraceBrad JacksonColin JamesJohn LarkindaleMargaret McLachlanRose NorthcottJohn O’Leary Lucy Sanderson-GammonMurray SherwinPROOFREADERNikki Crutchley Rose Northcott

JOURNAL ADVISORY GROUPLen Cook Chris Eichbaum, ChairJohn LarkindaleJulian LightMargaret McLachlan Ross Tanner

ADVERTISINGPhone: +64 4 463 6940; Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected]&K DesignPRINTINGLithoprint

SCOPEIPANZ is committed to promoting informed debate on issues already significant in the way New Zealanders govern themselves, or which are emerging as issues calling for decisions on what sorts of laws and management New Zealanders are prepared to accept.

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORSPublic Sector considers contributions for each issue. Please contact the journal’s editor for more information.

SUBSCRIPTIONSIPANZ welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions. Please email [email protected], phone +64 4 463 6940 or visit www.ipanz.org.nz to register online.

DISCLAIMEROpinions expressed in Public Sector are those of various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor, the journal advisory group or IPANZ. Every effort is made to provide accurate and fac-tual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur.

Better regulation: What is it? Are we achieving it?

President’s message by John Larkindale ...............................................................2

Official Information Act guidance ............................................................................2

IPANZ news: New Professionals conference ..........................................................3

Guest editorial: Does the public service reflect our demographics? by Jackie Blue, EEO Commissioner .........................................................................4

Cover story: A changing public service .............................................................. 5–9

Policymaking in a hyperglobalised world .......................................................10–13

Independent security review .................................................................................13

Beyond our borders: Policymaking and global trends .........................................14

Ashburton Civic Service – remembering our fellow public service colleagues .......................................................................................15

In search of the X-factor: Interview with Andrew Hampton ..........................16–17

Gender balance in the public service – a perfect leadership opportunity .......................................................................................................18–19

Taking the lead: Women in the public sector ................................................20–21

Better regulation: What is it? Are we achieving it? ...................................... 22–23

Point of view: The public service – the next generation by Brad Jackson Head of School, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington ........24

Pages 22–23

New Professionals conference

V o l u m e 3 7 : 3 S e p t e m b e r / O c t o b e r 2 0 1 4

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ipanz.org.nz





PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Stop, look, listen…and learn?By IPANZ President John Larkindale

At the end of the Chinese year, just before the New Year celebrations, the tradition is to sweep clean the house, pay off all one’s debts, and

offer a prayer to mark the safe passage of the year just gone. In this way, the detritus of the past year is wiped clean and the new year can get off to a fresh start. Perhaps the end of a Parliamentary term should be looked at in the same way? Should we try to draw a line under what has taken place, take stock of where we are and seek to do better in the future?

I suggest that we should. And the need to do that in respect of the public service is perhaps more pressing than ever. Over the past couple of decades there has been massive change in the way that public policy is developed and public services are delivered. Technology has changed the way our society operates and has been an extraordinarily powerful enabler. Public policy issues have grown immeas-urably more complex. The expectations of New Zealanders have expanded and deep-ened, both in terms of what they expect governments to deliver and in how they might influence what they do.

Those who deliver public services at both central government and local govern-ment levels have clearly responded to these new challenges. One has only to look at the annual IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards to recognise just how innovative the public sector can be in New Zealand. Then, too, there is a recog-nition of the need for change at the politi-cal level, as is demonstrated, for exam-

ple, by the legislative requirement in the State Services Amendment Act 2013 which explicitly sets out the need for departmen-tal chief executives to take into account the concept of stewardship in the exer-cise of their responsibilities, as well as the drive to look to collaborative work across departmental boundaries to address some of New Zealand’s most intractable issues, such as child welfare.

But not all the changes have necessar-ily been positive. Have the departmental restructurings, of which there have been many over recent years, achieved their objectives? And even where gains have been made, have they been sufficiently significant to outweigh the costs of long periods of disruption while new processes and systems are bedded in? The public sector has, as ever, responded to the demands for doing more with less, but how much evaluation has been carried out of the longer-term impact of this on a popu-lation that is increasing and changing in demographic composition? As ever more services are required for more people, something surely has to give. And then it is seemingly the case that ministers are becoming much more involved in micro-managing aspects of their departments’ work. What is the impact of this in rela-tion to the quality and range of advice they receive from their departments?

In short, the changes that have impacted upon the delivery of public services in New Zealand over the past quarter century or so have not been considered in a holistic, whole-of-govern-

ment way. Little has been done to evalu-ate the cumulative impact of changes over time on the fundamental way in which the public service delivers on its constitutional role within the New Zealand system of government.

I suggest that it’s time that this be done. The opportunity of a new government taking office should be the impetus for a comprehensive examination of whether the New Zealand public service as pres-ently set up is truly fit for purpose for the 21st century. The Labour Party proposes that a royal commission be set up to exam-ine the state sector. That is certainly one approach, but it is not the only one. The need is to ensure that New Zealand has a well-integrated system that is designed around its needs, protecting and preserv-ing the fundamental principles that have stood us so well for more than a century, while also taking full advantage of the opportunities that new technology brings to work more effectively and cost efficiently.

I would like to see the new govern-ment make a commitment to undertake a comprehensive analysis of just how well the public service is currently equipped, both to meet its constitutional responsibili-ties, as well as its policy advice and service delivery obligations. I would suggest too, that a clear signal of just how serious a new government might be to take such action would be to ensure the Minister of State Services has a high Cabinet ranking.

It is in all of our interests that the next government gets this right.

2 Public Sector September/October 2014

Official Information Act guidanceIn September, the State Services

Commission released guidelines to assist officials processing requests for, or where the scope of the request includes, draft reports, documents or correspondence under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).

The Guidelines for Coordination provide chief executives with guidance on how and when to consult with other departments or ministers.

As stated in the introduction to the guidelines, "Recent discussions and

events have highlighted the need for chief executives to be conscious of the value of adequate consultation in deciding whether to release information under the Official Information Act 1982".

The guidelines do not replace the legal requirements imposed on chief executives by the OIA. Instead, they have been published to provide assistance in situations where the collective interest of the government is involved.www.ssc.govt.nz/oia-guidance-sept14

www.ssc.govt.nz/oia


IPANZ newsIPANZ NEWS

Navigating Change: New Professionals conferenceAbout 170 new professionals gathered in Wellington for the biennial IPANZ New Professionals conference in early August. With between zero and five years’ work experience, these new professionals are very much the future face of the public sector. So what could the future hold for these new professionals? IPANZ Communications Adviser MARGARET MCLACHLAN shares messages from three presenters at the conference.

Tim Fowler, Chief Executive of the Tertiary Education Commission, discussed

what professionalism means within the public service.

“Professionalism is ‘the how’. Wellington is a small town and relationships matter; you will come across the same people throughout your career,” he said.

He advised the new profes-sionals to “be the best you can be” as success was 85 per cent attitude.

He also shared his thoughts on how new professionals can progress their own professional practice. He said some of the skills required include the abil-

ity to be a good team player, the aptitude to lead with ques-tions “rather than criticism”, and a focus on maintaining balance in your life. “It’s also impor-tant to assess your own strengths and weaknesses and be will-ing to continue to develop your emotional intelligence.”

IPANZ General Manager Lewis Rowland said he began his public service career almost 30 years ago, in 1985.

“Back then, who would have predicted the widespread use of technology, such as the internet, smartphones and touch screens? Jobs and careers have been created that didn’t even exist and

that’s likely to continue in the future.”

He said possible future trends include: technology taking the centre stage; a global economic shift; an ageing population plac-ing service demands on the public service; and increasing demographic changes that will affect where and to whom we deliver public services.

“Those working for the public service will have to give greater flexibility and adaptability. Policy advice, for example, could be functional, rather than depart-mental. We can look forward to a smarter, more savvy public service, and a whole range of other organisations working with government.”

Carol Yung, a Senior Consultant with Deloitte New Zealand, posed the idea of a future public service cloud workforce.

She said New Zealand is experiencing talent shortages in some areas, such as criti-cal thinking skills. A possible outcome could be “applying a cloud computing approach to the delivery of public sector work, whereby teams of subject-matter experts, who work across the public service and aren’t tied to a specific agency, are used to solve various problems and deliver projects as required.

“For example, in response to an event such as the Canterbury earthquakes, a team could be constructed of people with a range of skills, such as policy, technical and social support services. The machinery of government can be agile.”

Yung said we could also be looking at changes to how government engages with its citi-zens, using digital technologies and gamification to solicit ideas and solve problems. For example, the City of York, Pennsylvania, USA, recently received $10 million worth of ideas by offer-ing $20,000 worth of prize money using crowd sourcing to seek mobile app ideas for improving city transport.

“Government is just one player among many, includ-ing the private sector and social entrepreneurships. Work will be engaging, different and exciting and new professionals are in a good position to take advantage of that,” she said.

For additional insights from the conference, see this issue’s cover story that starts on page 5. Some speakers’ presentations are also available at www.ipanz.org.nz. Go to knowledge hub, semi-nar presentations, Navigating Change: New Professionals conference.

Presenting at the IPANZ New Professionals conference held in Wellington in August 2014: Tim Fowler, Chief Executive of the Tertiary Education Commission (above); and Carol Yung, Senior Consultant, Deloitte New Zealand (below).




GUEST EDITORIAL

Does the public service reflect our demographics?By Dr Jackie Blue, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner

From the 2013 Census, we know that Asian communities are the fast-est growing ethnicity over the past decade. The Asian population has

almost doubled since 2001 and increased as a percentage of the total population by over five per cent. Hindi is now our fourth most common language, reflecting that the Asian ethnicity is a broad grouping that takes in a wide range of communities.

The 2013 Census also confirms that Auckland is diversity central, with the nation’s largest Pacific population and nearly two-thirds of New Zealand’s Asian population living in the region.

In a world that is more interconnected than ever before, our diversity is a source of new opportunities and innovation. There is an incredibly strong business case that diversity at all levels in business gives us a wider talent pool to draw on, greater staff retention, consumer satisfaction, improved productivity, innovation, along with connec-tions to new countries, international markets and networks.

We need to ensure that our workplaces reflect our growing diversity and that includes our public services. It follows that greater diversity would assist the depart-ments to achieve Better Public Services targets.

As EEO Commissioner, my legislative mandate is with the state sector organisa-tions (through the State Sector Act 1988 and the Crown Entities Act 2004) who are required to be “good employers” with special regard to four target EEO groups: women, ethnic or minority groups, Māori, and people with disabilities.

Part of being a good employer includes a transparent, fair, gender-neutral remuner-ation system which is regularly reviewed; ensures equitable job opportunities and conditions; and recognises employee contributions.

Even though that first piece of legisla-tion that brought in the concept of EEO and the good employer requirement is over 25 years old, huge gains have not been made. EEO is about equality in the workplace for everyone and effective EEO programmes will inevitably result in greater diversity at all levels in an organisation.

A key indicator for equality at work is pay. The Human Rights Commission Census of Women’s Participation 2012

reported that there were 22 government departments that had gender pay gaps bigger than the average pay gap in the labour market. Nine government depart-ments had more than a 20 per cent gender pay gap, including Treasury and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

As part of our current work programme, we recently analysed all 29 public service departments to identify possible barri-ers to EEO along with good practice in the advancement of the four target groups.

Another key indicator is representation. We calculated the representation of the four groups across each department and in senior management teams along with aver-age (mean) and median pay gap for each of the groups.

Our public service is predominately female at 60 per cent. The public service senior management teams need more women, Pacific people, Māori and people with a disability. Māori, Pacific people and women are disproportionately represented in lower-paying jobs and this is a major contribution to ethnic and gender pay gaps. The gender pay gap was slightly higher at just over 14 per cent compared with the average pay gender gap of 13.4 per cent across the general labour market. There was no data on the pay gap for disabled people or the number of Asians in senior management teams.

Our analysis confirms that there hasn’t been a huge improvement over the last

two years. The outliers are still the outliers. Pay gender gaps of up to 30 per cent are still significant in many departments.

There were some stand-out departments (Department of Corrections, Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Education, Te Puni Kōkiri and Education Review Office) that are doing well for one or more of the target groups, but for the majority progress was very patchy. I would, however, particularly like to acknowledge the work of Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. They are both committed to driving greater gender and diversity outcomes throughout their business which I am confident over time will reflect positively in their EEO outcomes.

Compliance in this area is monitored annually by the State Services Commission through the Human Resources Capability Survey, but what is lacking are EEO targets and accountability for those targets rest-ing with the chief executives and State Services Commissioner. In addition, data collection needs to be harmonised and disability data collected and reported. We need to address these issues if we are to see our public service departments reflect our changing society and benefit from the greater opportunities that this brings.

Women Māori Pacific Asian Disabled

% in working age population 51.3% 12.7% 5.5% 12% 11.2%

% in the public service workforce 60% 16.5% 7.7% 7.6% 3.9%

% public service senior manage-ment team

41.5% 11.2% 1.8% n/a 2.3%

AVERAGE PAY GAP IN PUBLIC SERVICE

Gender pay gap 14.2%

Māori pay gap 11.2%

Pacific pay gap 19.4%

Asian pay gap 11.2%

n/aAVERAGE PAY GAP ACROSS WORKFORCE

Gender pay gap 13.4%

Māori pay gap 17.1%

Pacific pay gap

24%

Asian pay gap 13.3%


New Zealand is changing – and it’s changing faster than ever. How does the public service need to evolve to keep up with this change? What might it look like in 20 years’ time? JOHN O’LEARY looks at what some of the keynote speakers at the recent IPANZ New Professionals conference have to say on the matter.

New Zealand is changing – and it’s changing fast. For one thing, Auckland keeps growing

and growing. As Professor Paul Spoonley, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Massey University and an expert on New Zealand’s changing demographics, told attendees at the conference, currently about one-third of the population lives in the super city; by 2031 that figure will rise to 40 per cent (other population centres, by contrast, will experience only stable or declining population growth). In other words, by 2031 two million of the country’s five million people will live north of the Bombay Hills.

Another change has to do with diversity. Broadly, we used to be a nation of two cultures: an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic one and a Māori

one. According to Spoonley, however, the country’s population is becoming much more diverse in terms of its ethnic background. In 2006, 15 per cent of New Zealand’s population identified as Māori, seven per cent as Pasifika and 10 per cent as Asian; by 2026 these figures are expected to be 17 per cent, 10 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively. In other words, by 2026 over 40 per cent of all New Zealanders will be non-European in terms of their ethnic background. The population in Auckland, in particular, is becoming especially diverse: already some 40 per cent of its current population was born outside New Zealand.

Diversity, moreover, isn’t just about ethnic make-up; it also includes things like household composition, which is also

changing rapidly. Forty years ago, one-person households and households featuring childless couples were rare; now they are commonplace. Less and less is it possible to talk about a “typical” New Zealander or a “typical” New Zealand family. And this diversity is only going to grow.

More change, fasterChange, moreover, isn’t just happening; it’s happening faster. In a globalised, interconnected, deregulated world, ideas, products and people flow across the planet in increasing numbers at increasing speed. In such a world of relentless, fast-paced change, doing things in the old, tried-and-tested way no longer works so well. There’s a need for bolder, more innovative thinking; countries that fail to do this risk being left behind. And the necessity to come up with new solutions, fast, applies to the public sector as much as to the private.

A third change has to do with rising public expectations. Traditionally, in many countries, little was expected from civil service bureaucracies beyond the routine; innovative, “rock-the boat” thinking, when it appeared, was positively discouraged. New Zealand has been lucky in that it has always had an excellent public service. Increasingly, however, citizens expect fast, first-class service from public servants; delay and inefficiency are no longer acceptable. The “glide time” mentality, if it ever truly existed, is definitively out of date, a relic of the past.

All this poses a challenge for a traditional-style public service located largely in Wellington. How can it alter to serve an increasingly diverse, Auckland-centred population? How can it adapt to deal with a world characterised by relentless, fast-paced change? And how can it satisfy constantly rising public expectations?

a changing public service

>

© N

ew Z

eala

nd C

usto

ms

Serv

ice

© K

aree

n Sc

hnab

el, N

IWA

© N

Z Po

lice


Professor Paul Spoonley, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Massey University

No more “set and forget”According to Gabriel Makhlouf, Secretary to the Treasury, the public service needs to look and plan ahead if it is to cope with these challenges. One thing it needs to think about, he told the conference attendees, is stewardship: looking after the Crown’s medium- and long-term interests. Stewardship, says Makhlouf, occurs at the agency, sector and system level; it entails asking questions like “Are we focusing on the right things?” “Are we getting best value for our citizens for every dollar spent?” There’s a necessity, too, to give politicians and ministers good policy advice based on strong evidential foundations. What public servants mustn’t do, said Makhlouf, is take a “set and forget” approach to policy.

Another thing the public service needs to consider is its

approach to risk. The range of risks that are being managed by public service leaders has broadened considerably, explained Makhlouf. Moreover, there’s been a move from a focus on risk avoidance to one on risk management, something which is part of a larger shift towards creating a more innovative, less risk-averse public service culture. The public service has to learn to be a better manager of risk, said Makhlouf, and to do this it needs to better understand the public it serves. It needs to be asking questions like “What do people expect from us?” “What do they need?” “What behaviours are we seeing?” The more the public service knows about the public, said Makhlouf, the better its risk management will be.

Consideration of the public and its needs raises once again the issue of diversity. The country’s population is more diverse than ever, and is set to become yet more diverse. If the public service is going to serve that population well in the future, it is going to have to become more diverse, and make better use of the diversity it already has.

The diversity advantageCreating a more diverse public service might involve recruiting more public servants from a broader range of backgrounds, says Makhlouf, who recently gave a speech on the subject of diversity to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle. He is quick to point out, however, that what’s needed is not so much ethnic diversity per se as diversity of thinking and diversity of experience: the capacity to bring a wide range of views and skills to bear on a problem to come up with an original, innovative solution.

The business case for diversity is clear, says Makhlouf. Data shows that diverse work teams

are better at solving problems than teams selected just for intellectual ability alone. As a culture, we need to harness and accelerate the power of diversity to deliver new solutions. The goal should be to create a culture where diversity of thought is encouraged and celebrated.

“Diversity is the key to bolder, more innovative thinking.”

One idea, suggests Makhlouf, might be to have more Māori in Treasury, working not just on Māori policy but all policy. The idea of gaining a Māori perspective on economic and commercial matters is the subject, in fact, of a recent study led by Professor Jarrod Haar of Massey University’s Māori Business Research Centre. This study found that Māori leaders in business, government and iwi organisations typically display characteristics such as altruism, humility, a tendency to take the long-term view, and a collectivistic orientation. Although these characteristics can sometimes be a problem, in the sense that Māori may not always promote themselves and their achievements sufficiently loudly, they can be beneficial to businesses where (for instance)

© A

wcn

z62

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m

Less and less is it possible to talk about a “typical” New Zealander or a “typical” New Zealand family. And this diversity is only going to grow...

© N

ew Z

eala

nd C

usto

ms

Serv

ice

© N

Z Po

lice

© T

EC

Dreamstime.com


there is a commercial advantage in taking a long-term rather than a short-term view. It’s an argument, says Haar, for advancing Māori leaders through organisations.

Encouraging diversity, whether in the public sector or the private, is not necessarily easy, however. Progress has in fact been quite slow, admits Makhlouf, and the continuing low number of women, for example, on the country’s boards tends to support this conclusion. One reason for the slow progress of diversity, Makhlouf thinks, may be “unconscious bias”: our tendency to gravitate towards

people like us, with the result that organisations tend to exclude different sorts of people and the ideas they might bring.

For Makhlouf, unconscious bias is a kind of glass wall, a blind spot that limits our capacity to take advantage of the very real benefits conferred by diversity. The Treasury, he says, is actively seeking ways to counter unconscious bias. One thing it is doing is seeking out wider perspectives, both formally and informally. A second thing it is looking at is employing people from a wider range of backgrounds and life experiences. And the third thing it is doing

is developing a more inclusive culture: creating a space where different perspectives can flourish.

“We need people to feel they can be themselves at work. We’re asking the question: Can everyone be themselves in our culture, or do you have to leave yourself at the door when you come to work?”

Having to leave yourself at the door when you come to work is one problem; not having any work at all, or being forced to work in a job below your skill level is an even more serious issue, and one faced by many Asian immigrants to New Zealand. According to Professor Spoonley, they may be highly skilled and educated, but internal barriers, such as lack of English and a knowledge of how things are done locally, may hold them back, on top of external barriers such as the unconscious bias on the part

of potential employers identified by Makhlouf.

It’s a huge waste of talent. We need to embrace diversity, said Spoonley; ways to do this might include making business leaders and their staff more aware of the importance of diversity and developing diversity policies at work which recognise the value, for example, of recruiting multilingual personnel. And we need to ask ourselves some hard questions, added Spoonley, about whether we, as a nation, are truly welcoming to immigrants. Do we really value them? Is there a strong, persistent anti-immigrant bias in our country?

On the look-out for talentGovernment has limited ability to mould the make-up of the workforce in the private sector, but it can do something to affect >

WN16651

Policy is our Priority!2014 is all about policy and the public sector. We are seeking out policy professionals who are passionate about making a difference and who want to be a key part of shaping New Zealand’s future. H2R currently has strong demand in the areas of senior policy and advisory roles, so if you are an outstanding person with a proven track record in public policy, then we want to hear from you, even if you just want to find out what is happening in the market.

Principal and Senior Analysts – We have a range of interesting senior level opportunities across a number of government agencies and high demand for top quality people. If you’d like to have a confidential chat about the next step in your career please contact Kirsty Bidwell at [email protected]

Kirsty Bidwell Georgina Makarios Katerina Makarios

Policy Contractors – Heavy on-going demand for Policy Analysts at all levels, Project Managers and Change Managers. Georgina and Katerina Makarios want to hear from you if you are coming available in the next few weeks. [email protected] and [email protected]

For more detail, go to our Hot Jobs page on www.H2R.co.nz and type in the keyword “Policy” or call us on 04 499 9471.

“The idea is to get public servants working together collaboratively – to start thinking, not about what they do in their agencies, but about what is important to New Zealanders.”– Al Morrison, Deputy Commissioner, State Sector Reform


the character of the workforce in the public sector. Development of a forward-thinking, less risk-averse and more diverse body of public servants is indeed a current focus of the State Services Commission. Recently, for example, a Government Chief Talent Officer was appointed, to work out how best to foster talent in the senior levels of the public service (see pages 16-17 for an interview with the recently appointed Government Chief Talent Officer).

It’s a role that one of the presenters at the conference, Jacki Couchman, understands well, for as Acting Government Chief Talent Officer she led the work to establish the position. Couchman, who now heads Veterans’ Affairs, believes it is vital for the public service to become more open and inclusive if it is to meet the challenges of serving the public in the 21st century.

“We want all kinds of talented

people to become public servants by choice,” says Couchman. “Some of the most intelligent, dynamic people I know are public servants.

“That said, we do need to open out the public service more so that we can attract talent of all kinds. We need more people, for instance, from the private sector, NGOs and iwi working in the public sector, for shorter or longer periods; and we need more people from the public sector going into other sectors, working there for a while, and then bringing back the skills and experience they’ve acquired.

“We also need to think about attracting people into the service from a much wider range of backgrounds. Currently, for example, relatively few young people from the Pasifika community enter the public service. We need to change this; in 15 years’ time I would like to see a situation where it is natural for young people from Pasifika backgrounds to think about a

career in the public service. And I’d like this career to be seen as exciting and valuable in terms of the contribution it makes: people should want to work in the public service.”

If the public sector manages this change, says Couchman, it will be much stronger for it. “Strong organisations look diverse, sound diverse, talk diverse. There’s no reason why we can’t have a public service like this. It’s a matter of having the vision and doing the necessary planning.”

Recruiting talent, adds Couchman, is only half the story, however. It’s equally vital to deploy it fruitfully. “Currently we have what I call ‘cylinders of excellence’ – some agencies are beautiful silos, full of talented people. I’d like to see a situation where talent can be moved to where it’s needed most, easily and quickly. In other words, if there’s a hard problem the public service needs to focus on, then talented public servants can be put together to help solve it.

“We’ll have the right people in the right place at the right time doing the things that will make the biggest difference.”

How the public service should

look in 20 or 30 years’ time is an area of special interest for Al Morrison, who also attended the New Professionals conference. As Deputy Commissioner, State Sector Reform, he is tasked with helping oversee the implementation of changes to the way the public service works to make it better able to focus on the things that matter to New Zealanders.

Responsibilities, not just accountabilities

“The state sector reforms of the 1980s focused public servants on their accountabilities,” says Morrison. “This was in many ways positive, but the assumption grew that fulfilling

Jacki Couchman, Head of Veterans’ Affairs

© D

ave

Alle

n, N

IWA

© L

ucid

wat

ers

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m

As a culture, we need to harness and accelerate the power of diversity to deliver new solutions. The goal should be to create a culture where diversity of thought is encouraged and celebrated.

© N

ew Z

eala

nd C

usto

ms

Serv

ice

© D

OC

Dreamstime.com


accountabilities was almost all that mattered: there was an attitude that as long as we were fulfilling our accountabilities, then the system was working.

“The problem was that some of the the outcomes we were seeing that required collective responsibility were not that good. Our welfare system, for example, was producing second-, third- and even fourth-generation dependency. Our educational ‘tail’ was not shortening, the quality of water in our rivers was worsening, and so on.

“Things came to a head in the late 1990s and some initiatives were implemented to address some of these negative outcomes, such as Strengthening Families. Finally, in 2011, came the Better Public Services report. This led to a range of programmes being developed that were designed to work across the whole of the state sector system. The idea is to get public servants working together collaboratively – to start thinking, not about what they do in their agencies, but about what is important to New Zealanders.”

If these reforms are carried out successfully, says Morrison, then in 20 or 30 years’ time he would expect to see a public service that is radically customer focused, in the sense that it is concentrated on what will make the most difference in terms of meeting the country’s high-level goals: making New Zealand prosperous, inclusive and sustainable.

“For the public service, this may involve giving up our focus on accountabilities in order to discharge our responsibilities. It’s a big shift in approach, but it’s one we are going to have to make.”

Shaping your career to a ‘T’Diversity is not just desirable

at the agency or sector level. It’s equally important, says Jacki Couchman, Head of Veterans’ Affairs, for public servants to think about diversity in terms of their own career.

“In the past, there’s been a tendency in the public service to focus on one area of specialisation – on policy analysis, for example, or communications. But to be really useful in tomorrow’s public service, public servants are going to have to start broadening out their work experience.

“Think of your career as a ‘T’. You have the upright which represents your particular area of specialisation, built up over time. But across the top you have branches to the right and left – these represent other areas in which you have experience or ability to collaborate with others.

“How you go about broadening your experience is up to you. It might be a matter of picking up project work that complements or extends your main area of expertise. A policy analyst might do some communications work, for instance, or vice versa.

“The point is that you should be looking around for opportunities and taking advantage of them. They’ll be all around – you just have to say ‘yes’ to them.”

What public servants need to stop doing, says Couchman, is waiting for their manager to find them their next learning opportunity. “Ideally, you should be developing your career in partnership with your manager. But you should be steering it yourself.”

Values, not just goalsAnother important thing, says Couchman, is to make sure that your career aligns, not just with your goals, but with your values.

“You can have a brilliant career that achieves all your goals, but if it doesn’t align with your values – to what matters to you deep down – then you are probably not going to be happy in your work. So by all means, write out your five- and 10-year goals and work hard to achieve them, but also spend time identifying your values and thinking about what kind of work best aligns with them.

“If the area you’re working in doesn’t align with these values, then maybe it’s time to start thinking about moving to an area that does.

“You’ll be a much happier person, and a better worker.”

Average age: 44.6 years (35% 50 years or older)

Composition (gender/ethnic): women 59.8%; European 72%; Māori 16.5%; Pacific people 7.7%; Asian 7.6%

Composition of general population (ethnic): European 74%; Māori 14.9%; Pacific people 7.4%; Asian 11.8%

Diversity in senior leadership (gender/ethnic): women 41.5%; Māori 11.2%; Pacific people 1.8%

Average salary: male $74,903; female $64,297

Pay gaps (gender/ethnic): female 14.2%; Māori 11.2%; Pacific people 19.4%; Asian 11.2%

The public service in numbers

in Wellington region 41.6%in Auckland region 20.1%in Canterbury region 9.5%

Source: Human Resource Capability in the New Zealand State Services 2013

Total workforce:

46,546


© S

erge

y N

iven

s

First, some context. We are living through a turbulent decade.

One element is the coming of age of a disruptive technology, digital technology, which is turning a hyperglobalised world into one that is hyperconnected and hyperdatamined and which is rapidly and radically transforming production, education and health care and driving major social change, including in the nature of work, akin to the change driven by the industrial revolution but very many times faster. This will in turn drive big changes in our politics and policy imperatives.

Moreover, this disruptive technological change comes during the aftermath of a disjunctive shock, the global financial crisis, which has prompted a deep and wide-ranging debate on the theory and practice of political economy, at least as great as that from mixed-economy Keynesianism to market-liberal Friedmanism.

These tectonic shifts come at a time when the global economic and political map is being redrawn in favour of China and other “emerging-economy” countries, when globalisation of people is enriching, diversifying and disrupting societies, relocating jobs and, combined with the technological change, redefining “work” and its rewards, when life-sustaining ecosystems are being destabilised and other resources put under strain and when war has been reframed in ways that make it difficult to work out who the enemy is.

We are in a very different world from 20 years ago and probably a very different one from 20 years hence.

How is this relevant to policy?

1. Nation-states’ scope for policy action is constrained by the greater global interdependency and interconnectedness.

For example, the 1930s Labour government was able to regulate wages at a level that sustained a family, but now some businesses say a modest “living wage” would make them uncompetitive. Because “emerging-economy” countries, which will be our comparator countries, provide less government assistance to citizens and are unlikely to raise assistance to north-European levels (which is normally how we compare ourselves as a country), our future options for assistance are constrained. That leaves space for distinct national policies and programmes, but requires them to be rigorously designed and implemented.

2. Taxes are becoming harder to collect. Global companies, especially those operating in the cybersphere, can more readily transfer profits or “head offices” to lower-tax jurisdictions and consumers can more readily buy goods online and escape GST. That will require major tax policy and management changes over the next decade and may constrain government investment and spending options.

3. Foreign policy management is much more complex than in the less tightly interdependent and interconnected world of 20 years ago and the consequences of failure potentially higher in terms of national security and prosperity. New Zealand’s only influence with other countries, as a mini-nation with no military or economic power, is its reputation as a good global citizen. That requires strategic policy and a high-quality foreign service and ministers who back it.

4. Policy for 1990s factories won’t do in the 2020s. Additive manufacturing is likely to shift the actual manufacture of a widening range of things close to the point of sale or use; the “trade” will be in the software and

Policymaking in a hyperglobalised world

An edited version of comments to a conference of the Industry Training Federation and Polytechnics, Colin James, 31 July 2014

“


Looking for a Policy Job? Looking for Policy Talent?

As New Zealand’s only specialist public sector recruitment firm we have the expertise, the relationships and the know-how to find you the right job and the right talent every single time! (Both Permanent or Contract)

Visit: www.thejohnsongroup.co.nz or phone 04 473 6699.

YOUR FIRST CHOICE FORPUBLIC SECTOR PROFESSIONALS

raw materials. How will you stop (or tax) the importation and use of undesirable items, for example, guns? Electronic monitoring systems and multi-tasking and “responsive” robots are beginning to transform factory management, drastically reducing the numbers of processing operatives needed.

5. Policy for old “skills” won’t do in the 2020s. The ability to respond is likely to be a growing factor in employment, in doing the work and in employers’ expectations when hiring. This is often greatly overstated, especially by digital-sector enthusiasts and proselytes. But employment that requires flexible, adaptable, innovative employees is likely to grow and employers may seek such people for other jobs. So the critical test will be that pupils acquire the skills that are needed to learn skills for the next job – that is, the skill-to-be-skilled.

6. Digital technology poses opportunities and challenges for public agencies. The opportunities are for efficiency, collaboration and sharing of data, swifter, more accurate delivery of services and connectedness into international practices, experiences and innovations and easier access to agencies for citizens. Challenges include: keeping up with digital citizens’ expectation of instant responses; protection of privacy and management of data; intellectual

property registration and protection; regulation of industries, firms and individuals which adopt and adapt fast-changing digital technologies; the impact of those technologies on a wide range of what were settled facts; in education, readier access to foreign-supplied services.

So what are the logical principles for policy in this changing environment?

1. Strategic thinking and tactical flexibility are both critical. Most policy aims to fix an immediate matter, especially if politically problematic. And the rapidly changing global and technological environments require flexible and fast responses. But flexible and fast responses need to be within a strategic envelope. And “strategic” thinking must be periodically reassessed against changing evidence, especially after a disjunctive shock or against the effects of a disruptive technology.

2. Good policy requires cross-agency collaboration. The best example of cross-agency collaboration so far is the “justice pipeline”, but it is tightly

limited in scope. A wider application is in the 10 initial Better Public Services results that point down a collaborative path that agencies have barely started to travel down.

3. Strong tactical responses require innovation. This means enlisting people other than policy analysts in the development and implementation of policy.

4. Rigorous, science-based evidence is critical. Sir Peter Gluckman last year [The role of evidence in policy formation and implementation, Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, September 2013] set out the criteria for effective use of the physical and social sciences in policy. His main point was that the “evidence” must be rigorous and often it is not. He urged a standard set of protocols on obtaining and using expert scientific advice, which is often complex. He is now appointing departmental science advisers. Of course, politicians have to adapt officials’ advice to fit within public acceptability, but the stronger the scientific backing the stronger the case for politicians to build that public acceptability. >

One element is the coming of age of a disruptive technology,digital technology, which is turning a hyperglobalised world into one that is hyperconnected and hyperdatamined and which is rapidly and radically transforming production, education and health care and driving major social change, including in the nature of work, akin to the change driven by the industrial revolution but very many times faster.


5. New and existing law must achieve the purported objectives. That requires rigorous, you might say ruthless, assessment before and after new legislation and regulation. This is the subject of an extensive report issued by the Productivity Commission in July, which has some backing at a high political level. The commission found fragmented work, misplaced resources, fuzzy focus, poor communication, disruptive restructures, inadequate quality and quantity of staff and over-detailed primary legislation (Acts), which Parliament can’t find the time to fix. Two-thirds of “regulator” chief executives reported they often work with outdated or not fit-for-purpose law. Parliament’s regulations review committee has too few MPs and hardly any staff. Funding cuts have killed the Law Commission’s legislation oversight. Regulatory agencies “face challenges in attracting, training and retaining key staff ”. The Treasury and the State Services Commission aren’t providing necessary

support. The commission

recommended “a system of peer reviews” by panels of senior regulatory leaders, tougher and more active supervision of agencies, coordination of and cooperation by agencies and setting “goals and priorities for the system as a whole”, overseen by a senior minister and with “intellectual leadership”.

6. Opportunity is a better basis for good policy than problems are. Problems justify politicians’ and public servants’ existence because they can come up with “solutions” and once the solution is in place that is the end of the matter. A focus on opportunities invites positive, forward-looking initiatives and innovation to make the most of the opportunities. An example in education is the deciles 1-3 Manaiakalaani group of schools, a hive of social entrepreneurship backed by business cash and acumen, which has lifted learning outcomes.

7. An investment approach toughens policy thinking. Investment generates an asset, which is still around in the future; spending consumes a service and the money is gone. One way of applying this is to work out the cost of not doing

something (specifically someone becoming a lifelong beneficiary),

which gives a putative – and eventually actual – return on

doing something that averts that cost. The evidence

is compelling from the globally unique Dunedin longitudinal study and the science of epigenetics and nutrition that the most effective “social policy” investment is

in the pre-birth and immediately post-birth

years. Not successfully intervening with kids

euphemistically called “at risk” in that age zone has heavy

subsequent educational, health, social and “justice” costs plus the cost of a lost member of the productive, taxpaying workforce. Investment that prevents that

produces a dividend equal to the cost of dealing with it if it happens. This actuarial/

investment approach, which I think is the Key-English government’s most important innovation, has been applied only to a narrow area of social assistance reform. But to extend this approach will require rigorous inquiry, very good actuarial data and evidence of what works, constantly and ruthlessly monitored. That is hard policy to get right.

8. Who pays and who gains? Education is a good example of the relevance of this question. It is usually thought of as an investment, with a dividend to the whole of society of more productive members of the workforce and a dividend to individuals in higher lifetime earnings (though there is now some doubt) and a sense of membership of their society. But what is the private-public cost-benefit breakdown now, especially in expensive post-compulsory “education”? Through the 1990s, policymakers believed there was benefit to the whole economy of more people getting more qualifications so taxpayer money was spent on the subsidy and on subsidised loans to students. Now policymakers might usefully ask if the return on the taxpayers’ investment is adequate or if they are over-subsidising or under-subsidising the private gains. That is not a simple calculation. The timeframes are not clear. Nor is the cost and benefit of migration and immigration of talented, taxpaying people. That is hard policy to get right.

9. How should policy respond to special interests? Special interests are (usually) up with the play and ahead of the public and have more at stake (to gain or lose) than individual members of the public. Managing the who-pays-who-gains balance between special interests and the wider public interest is a major issue for policymaking in a democracy, which is predicated on equal citizenship, a topic I have explored this year in a note for the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies [http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/Vested Interest Paper.pdf ]. Also, too much concession to special interests can lead to counterproductive swings in policy.

10. Policy is for more than policy analysts and politicians. The public-private distinction of the past 35 years is out of date and obstructive. Rigorously

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/Vested

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/Vested

Paper.pdf


Independent security review The Ministry of Social Development will conduct an

independent review into the MSD’s physical security environment. Former New Zealand Police Commissioner Rob Robinson and Deloitte New Zealand Chair Murray Jack will conduct the review.

The reviewers will be supported by an advisory group comprised of: Sir Maarten Wevers (Chair), former Chief Executive, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; Glenn Barclay, National Secretary, Public Service Association; Craig Sims, Chief Operating Officer, ANZ Bank; and Graham Maloney, First Assistant Secretary, Service Delivery Operations, Department of Human Services (Australia). Staff feedback will also be an important part of the review process.

The review will be in two parts: Part one will look at public-

facing service centres. The second part of the review, which will have a longer timeframe for completion, will look at all remaining MSD workplaces. Additional or different advisory group members may be added to the second phase of the review.

The review will be made publicly available when completed.In the short term, MSD has changed the way Work and

Income will manage access to service centres. Security guards will control entry and may ask for identification. If anyone is assessed as presenting a risk they may be refused entry.

As MSD Chief Executive Brendan Boyle said when announcing this security measure, “While this may cause some slight inconvenience to clients, we believe that in the interests of safety for staff and clients, this is a step worth taking.”

assembling evidence, evaluating legislation and regulations against their purported objectives and judging a government programme by the return on investment and complex cost-benefit assessments needs more than departmental policy analysts. Most do not have all the neces-sary skills, knowledge and aptitudes or the capacity for innovation and they are not allowed to take the risks inherent in inno-vation. Experts, stakeholders and interest groups and not-for-profits can widen the pool of expertise and knowledge. Working groups that include private sector experts have fed influentially into policy develop-ment on capital markets, tax and welfare. The Land and Water Forum of 59 inter-est groups ranging from farmers and elec-tricity generators, through industry and local government to recreational and envi-ronmental groups and iwi generated a consensus on policy foundations for use and management of freshwater which has buy-in from most political parties. Better arrangements with not-for-profits than the current over-legalised contract-ing could boost innovation and improve service delivery in social assistance and environmental protection and restoration.

11. Customisation is a must. In the digital age of generations Y and Zero there is a strong, embedded presumption that goods and services will be customised.

12. Durable policy requires public buy-in. This does not mean pandering to focus groups or skilful political

marketing or just waiting for an eventual acquiescence in a status quo. It does mean developing mechanisms beyond the customary consultation, testing with stakeholders and then leisurely adjustment by courts. Examples of such mechanisms are citizens’ assemblies and juries, deliberative polling and some use of referendums. Younger generations are likely to assume more of this “participatory democracy” than older, more acquiescent generations did.

Looking to the futureWe live in turbulent times, technologically and in the rebalancing of global power, which is having and will continue to have a profound impact on New Zealand, which both limits the scope for some policy action and demands policy action on other fronts. The principal skill needed by individuals in this rapidly changing world is the ability to think and adjust, the “skill-to-be-skilled”, which requires a more intense focus in the first three years of life.

Policy and resultant law needs to be founded on strong science-based evidence and geared to the purported objectives. There must be a measurable, sound return on investment. Cross-agency cooperation in policy development and implementation is critical and policy responses to digital technology advances need to be fast and continuous but within a strategic envelope. That will require involvement of outsiders, including foreign experts, in policy formation.

”

And it requires public buy-in. The relative private and public costs and

benefits must be clear. For outsiders hoping to influence policy

that means: • developing relationships with relevant

officials in all departments and all relevant political party spokespeople and ministers

• presenting a case that stacks up on sound scientific and other well-grounded evidence, is innovative and promises a real return on investment

• presenting a case that stacks up on national interest grounds, not special interest grounds, with the balance between private and public costs and benefits well founded so the public will buy in

• going outside the sectoral box because a single interest group’s policy win is always vulnerable to being trumped later by another single interest group, especially with a change of government and rightly so in a democracy, whereas a full consensus of all interest groups involved in a topic area (such as with the Land and Water Forum) would make a compelling policy case.

And don’t think a policy is for keeps. This is a fast-moving world and policy has to keep up.

For a full copy of the speech, visit www.colinjames.co.nz/policymaking-in-a-hyperglobalised-world/.

www.colinjames.co.nz/policymaking

www.colinjames.co.nz/policymaking

Step DescriptionExamples of how that looks in practice using retirement policy

1 Identify potential trends and shocks

Conduct a wide search and list all global trends and potential shocks, for example, look at lists other firms have created, search academic work. In other words, do your homework.

From our search we had a list of about 350.

2 Select relevant trends

Go through the list and remove all those that are not relevant to your specific lens (for example, trends that would impact on retirement are likely different from those that would impact on fisheries).

Through this process we were left with about 80.

3 Categorise the trendsGroup the trends into categories, there is no set list to use, instead it’s best to see what seems a natu-ral fit.

We used nine categories: Politics; Economy; Environment; Society and Culture; Demographics; Science and Technology; Business; Health; and Consumption.

4 Identify variables relevant to your lens

Think about the type of policy you are working on and what the variables are that affect the overall outcomes.

We had six variables for retirement: retiree numbers, retiree health, resources per retiree, government policy, innovative solutions, and inequality.

5Within each category, identify how the trends affect the variables and their likelihood

One by one, go through the list of relevant trends and determine if they are “likely” or “unlikely”, and describe the impact they would have on the variables.

For example, under global trends we had increasing population was likely to continue and the impact of that was likely to be an increased number of retirees.

6Develop scenarios describing possible futures

Group all the “likely” trends and use them to write a story describing the base case that is assumed for all scenarios. Group “unlikely” trends into the two most important dimensions and create a 2x2 matrix that defines four scenarios, and write a description for each. Finding the most important dimensions is the hardest part of the process, but it is crucial for understanding the options and outcomes.

7 Identify implications for future plans

Describe what each of the scenarios would involve and look like, and identify which is most desirable and which should be avoided. Then use that new understanding to determine what strategies would need to be implemented to achieve the desired state and avoid disaster.

We arrived at three different types of strategies. 1) No regrets strategies: Those that take advantage of or respond to expected changes in ways that realise benefits or have only low costs if changes do not occur as anticipated. 2) Mini-max strategies: Strategies that protect against catastrophes by minimising the maximum loss. 3) Strategies to build capability: Strategies that build the skills needed to manage and adapt to anticipated and uncertain futures.

Beyond our borders: Policymaking and global trends

At the recent New Professionals conference, Lillian Grace, CEO of Wiki New Zealand, discussed global changes and challenges

affecting New Zealand in the context of policymaking.

“The large quantity of global trends and their uncertainty can seem nearly impossible to navigate, but there are some really practical methods you can use to get clarity on how to reduce the risks and maximise the opportunities.

“For example, while in a previous role at Stakeholder Strategies we developed a seven-step method to understand the impact of global trends on

New Zealand’s retirement income policy. The seven steps are useful for policymakers to use to put a global lens on policy development.”

As Grace notes, “It is important to realise this is not a one-time process. Global trends are not new, and they are not something we can “solve”. They are a set of forces whose make-up and likelihood will forever change and that we should continue to understand and adapt to.”

Implications of global trends for retirement income policy is available at www.cflri.org.nz/sites/default/files/docs/RI-Review-2013-Implications-of-global-trends-for-retirement-income-policy.pdf.

Lillian Grace, CEO, Wiki New Zealand

Econ

omic

pro

gres

s

Social cohesionNO

NO

YES

YES

Winners vs Losers

Successfulprogress

Fallingapart

Struggling together


www.cflri.org.nz/sites/default/files/docs/RI

www.cflri.org.nz/sites/default/files/docs/RI

-Review-2013-Implications-of-global-trends-for-retirement-income-policy.pdf

-Review-2013-Implications-of-global-trends-for-retirement-income-policy.pdf

http://www.cflri.org.nz/sites/default/files/docs/RI-Review-2013-Implications-of-global-trends-for-retirement-income-policy.pdf


Ashburton Civic Service – remembering our public service colleaguesOn 1 September, Work and Income staff members Peg Noble and Leigh Cleveland were killed and Lindy Curtis was injured when a gunman opened fire at the Ashburton Community Link. Ten days later, the Ashburton commu-nity held a public memorial service to mourn the tragedy and to honour the lives of the victims. The Ministry of Social Development Chief Executive BRENDAN BOYLE’S written speech from the service is below.

“Whenever people die at work, differ-ent communities of family, friends and colleagues are drawn together. We see different sides of people. Death illumi-

nates the whole person.The thoughts I have to share are about

the work of public servants, such as Leigh Cleveland and Peggy Noble, and our injured colleague Lindy Curtis, whom I am pleased to say, is making progress to the relief of her family, friends and colleagues.

New Zealand is a democracy, something for which many have given their lives. Public servants rightly commit to imple-menting the policies of the elected govern-ment, under the law. For all of us it is a job. For many – perhaps most of us – that job includes elements of a calling, a vocation, a commitment to others.

And so it was for Leigh Cleveland and Peggy Noble and Lindy Curtis at work last week. In the Ministry of Social Development we say: “We will always be here to help people in need”. Leigh and Peggy were at work, being there for people in need, when they lost their lives. Lindy was there for people in need when she was shot.

They were serving people directly by providing them with information, enti-tlements, and services. They will not be forgotten. Family and friends will remem-ber and mourn them with an intimate and personal insight. Those of us who worked with them will remember their service to New Zealand.

Like our other staff, they came to

work each day prepared to face the whole range of New Zealanders who seek our services and support. Like our other staff, Leigh and Peggy responded with firm-ness in implementing policy, with kind-ness in explanation, and with intelligence in seeking solutions to people’s problems. You can’t work on our front desks with-out empathy, sympathy and commitment to people.

In marking this tragedy, let’s also mark the professionalism they showed on all the other, uneventful, days of their work-ing lives. All of us who are committed to public service can take pride that Leigh and Peggy were a part of us, and realise, in their loss, the importance of our own work and the public service itself.

It is an honour to be here with both families and to share your grief.

Our respect for Leigh and Peggy has been shown by government workers throughout New Zealand marking two minutes silence a week after the event and in many other ways. It is shown in the expressions of concern for Lindy and for those affected emotionally by the expe-rience. Most of all, our respect is shown by our continued work – often diffi-cult, and always challenging – to help New Zealanders to help themselves to be safe, strong and independent.

Those who do this work also need to be safe. Their families should not have to fear that they will not return home at the end of the day. In the days, weeks and years ahead we will continue to think about, and learn what we can from what happened.

I take my responsibility for this seri-ously. I will be asking myself, over and over, what more could I have done? I know others are doing the same thing, and that at times we feel as if we are searching in darkness.

I’ve heard it said that it is better “to light one candle than to curse the dark-ness”. We are looking for those points of light, those things we can learn from what has happened. Every action we take so that in the future staff will be safer will be a

tribute to Leigh, and Peggy, and all victims of this terrible act.

But while we look for lessons, we cannot ignore the darkness. We must not hesitate to condemn, utterly, the evil that occurred in the Ashburton office that day. We may in time learn to what extent it was a result of social conditions, or medical issues, or psychological processes, or an act of will, or all of these.

But the victims – those who have died and those who must live with these memo-ries – bear no responsibility for what has happened. By seeking concrete actions for the future we honour the victims, and we push back against the darkness.

Already, our people are reflecting on what has happened and, putting aside their shock and anger, concentrating on what this means for us and our relationship with clients. We respect those who need our services.

I see indications that we will be stronger in our expectations of mutual respect. We will not be less tolerant, but we will be more willing to clearly say what cannot be tolerated. In that process we will begin to restore and renew trust.

But today is about this moment and honouring two whose lives have been taken because they worked for others, and recognising all those wounded and harmed by this attack. Today is about realising, in our shared grief and loss, the strength of that community and soci-ety we work to build. And it is about our responsibility, even at this moment, to not back away from our commitment to serve New Zealanders.

Leigh and Peggy and Lindy and all the others who have been hurt deserve that.”


In search of the X-factorAndrew Hampton, Government Chief Talent OfficerAndrew Hampton isn’t exactly the New Zealand public sector’s equivalent of Simon Cowell, he’s looking for individuals with the leadership X-factor rather than the musical variety. Writer ROSE NORTHCOTT talks with Hampton who is the first Government Chief Talent Officer.

Four months into the job, what are you focused on?This role is about having a dedicated function working on behalf of the whole system to identify and grow leaders at all levels. The role was created in the wider context of the state sector reform programme currently underway where the emphasis is on the public sector being more joined up, focused on results and delivering better public services.

Since the state sector reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s, it’s really been up to individual agencies to take responsibility for developing their leaders. What tends to happen is you get people who are strong agency leaders but possibly less able to manage at a system level. Managing from a system-wide perspective is crucial, however, as most of the big challenges facing government can’t be solved by individual agencies working alone, but by working more collaboratively and taking a more customer-centric approach than has been the case.

There are two other elements to the role. One is around helping agencies to better plan for their changing workforce needs – that is both assisting agencies with their industrial relations negotiations and helping them with workforce planning.

The third element of the role that binds it altogether is head of profession for human resource services across the public service. We’ve got HR people working in their own agencies doing their best to provide good HR advice, but there’s a lot of duplication and not enough sharing of best practice or resources. Recently, we have been running a series of sessions with HR practitioners about how they can better plan and be more joined up around their future workforce needs.

How are the career boards contributing to tomorrow’s leaders?Three career boards have been established over the past couple of years and they are starting to hum. These are where groups of chief executives get together reasonably frequently and talk collectively about who they see as key talent in their agencies. They profile those leaders collectively and take some collective responsibility for their development. Career boards are owned by the CEs – we are there to support and facilitate.

The three career boards are based around sectors – natural resources and business; social and justice; security and external relationships. We are in the process of setting one up focused on Auckland. What is exciting is that it will also involve Crown entities and the Auckland Council.

A key focus for the next six to 12 months is to take the career boards to the next level of maturity and get the Auckland career board up and running.

Another priority is making sure the critical infrastructure we need to support this common approach to leadership identification and development is all in place. For example, we don’t have a good system across the whole of the public sector for assessing leadership talent or collecting talent information. This is something we are working on with the Leadership Development Centre who are a key delivery partner of ours.

We are also in the process of procuring with the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, a new HR information system that will include a talent management information component. It will be available to all agencies to use and will enable us to start getting consistent leadership information across all agencies.

How do career boards develop future system-focused leaders?One example is looking at opportunities to move senior people between agencies for the good of the system and developing the skills and experience of the individuals involved.

There’s been about eight shifts since May and several more in the pipeline. There’s been some understandable concern from CEs being asked to give up high-performing staff, but as CEs become more focused on the system they see the collective benefits. And what goes around comes around. For example, the Ministry of Justice gave up a strong operational manager to help the Ministry of Education in a regional director role, but benefitted from getting an experienced IT person from the Department of Internal Affairs to help with some of their transformation work. Having someone who knows about your business working in a different agency can also be of real benefit to CEs.

Explain your work on identifying key positions?There were changes made to the State Sector Act last year which included the ability for the State Services Commissioner to designate certain positions as key positions important to the whole system. These tend to be big operational or strategic roles, as well as some functionally important roles in areas such as HR and IT. We’ve identified about 80 of those key position roles across the system and, through the career boards, have set about identifying credible successors. That doesn’t mean those individuals will get the job, rather we know individuals who could potentially fill those roles and are making sure they have suitable development plans in place. There hasn’t previously been deliberate succession planning at the system level for these key positions.


Which tiers of leadership are you focused on?My primary focus at the moment is the top end of the leadership pipeline. My second area of focus is around new and emerging leaders. We have work underway on a system-level graduate programme, including working with Victoria University of Wellington on an intern programme. We are leveraging off the very good graduate programmes being run by some agencies and are wanting to inject a system-level focus into them so that when people join the public sector they get a greater sense of how they fit within the wider system, as well as within their own agency.

We are also keen to make the very good programmes some agencies run for new managers more consistent and widely available.

What are you doing in the areas of gender and ethnic diversity?An important focus for me is encouraging diversity across leadership at all levels of the public sector. Part of that is about attracting different types of people into the public sector. It’s also about making sure the career boards are thinking quite deliberately about how we can increase the number of women, Māori, Pasifika and Asian people in senior positions.

This stuff just makes simple business sense. There are two main reasons for having

diverse people around the management table: First, it encourages more diverse views and better decision-making. Secondly, as society becomes more diverse, we want a public sector made up of people who reflect that society and are comfortable and confident in dealing with that diversity, regardless of their personal background.

What advice do you have to someone wanting to get noticed as a future leader?The first thing is really excellent performance. We need to do more to make it easy to identify and spot talent, but individuals also need to really show that they have the right stuff. They need to be prepared to take opportunities that come their way and look for opportunities. The third key thing is don’t be afraid to talk with managers about their aspirations.

I am also a firm believer that people need to move around the system to gain that depth and breadth of experience. In the past four years I’ve been in three agencies and I’ve learnt more in that time than in the previous 14 years in one agency.

What led you to this role? I have spent pretty much all of my working career since university working in the public service. I had a stint at Te Puni Kōkiri around the time of the Fiscal Envelope [a policy set in 1994 that fixed the value of all Treaty claims at $1 billion – the policy

was rescinded in 1996], big debate around the future of the Māori seats and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. I then spent eight years with the Office of Treaty Settlement, four as director. It was a challenging, but also an incredibly rewarding time involving negotiation of about 12 settlements as director.

I then made a complete change and went over to the court side of the Ministry of Justice. I did a whole range of interesting things there, including introducing a digital audio technology system to courts. I also oversaw the ministry’s response to the Canterbury earthquakes which involved setting up an interim court system in Christchurch because the main court buildings were located in the red zone. I then did deputy secretary stints at the Crown Law Office and the Ministry of Education.

Leadership has always been a real priority for me and all my roles have involved leadership under different sorts of pressure. I have been lucky to have some great leaders and seen the difference strong leadership can make to an organisation.

One of the reasons I was attracted to this role was helping to identify and develop the next generation of leaders in the public service. Ultimately we can have the best systems and policies and great people in an organisation, but if you don’t have strong leaders you are always going to struggle.

Take your workplace performance to the next level with our Project Management programmes

Build robust, resilient teams and then lead them to success in achieving business outcomes

The Skills Organisation0508 SKILLS (0508 754 557)[email protected]


By Lucy Sanderson-GammonResearchers worldwide argue the benefits of having gender balance in senior management teams, yet women are still under-represented in the top roles of the New Zealand public service (41.5 per cent of the senior leadership roles are held by women, with only 22 per cent holding chief executive roles).

This represents a missed opportunity for delivering better public services and improving performance

across the sector. It also raises issues of gender equity and equal employment opportunities for women public servants.

Achieving gender balance in public sector leadership is potentially a topic that risks being put in the “too hard basket” because there is no simple solution and not even a general consensus that a problem exists.

In 2013, I conducted research aimed at finding out why New Zealand is losing women en route to the top of the public service. By taking a strategic human resources management approach, the focus of the research was on the potential barriers to women’s advancement inherent in organisational cultures and structures, rather than on individual deficits in women. This was based on the premise that, if the underlying systemic factors are not addressed, initiatives to develop individuals for leadership roles are likely to be undermined.

For the research, HR leaders from a third of central government agencies were interviewed. The findings were consistent with what the international literature has shown to stand in the way of women’s advancement. For instance, there

is evidence of bias in recruitment and promotion, workplace sexism, gender stereotypes around leadership styles, expectations of long hours on the job and male-dominated networks.

It is perhaps not surprising that the organisational barriers found in the study reflect many of those found in the international literature. From that perspective, they are not necessarily new or unique, but having evidence of what is actually occurring in the New Zealand public service context provides valuable insights. While further research should be carried out within individual agencies to determine interventions appropriate to their specific environment, the findings of this initial research show there is significant work to be done across the sector to address systemic barriers to women reaching the top roles of the public service.

The perspectives and views of the HR leaders themselves was one of the more interesting, and perhaps concerning, outcomes of the research, particularly given the influence HR leaders have in the design and implementation of organisational policies and initiatives. There was a general lack of awareness of the effect that organisational systems, processes and cultures could have on women’s advancement

– and therefore a distinct lack of measures to counter these effects.

Many of the HR leaders interviewed thought that changes were required across the sector, but did not recognise issues within their organisation. In addition, while there was a general acceptance of the need for diversity strategies or initiatives, there was a reluctance to focus on gender-specific interventions.

HR leaders will arguably have a pivotal role in implementing solutions due to their role and responsibilities within an organisation. This apparent aversion to gender diversity initiatives and the prevalence of unconscious bias are potentially the two most important barriers identified through the research.

Because unconscious bias is so pervasive it has the potential to undermine all behaviour or culture change efforts. In addition, if HR leaders themselves are not willing or able to back gender diversity interventions, then long-term, sustainable change within organisations will be that much more difficult to achieve.

What have we got to lose?The challenge might be a tough one, but New Zealand stands to lose quite a bit if nothing is done to address these barriers.

There are the lost opportunities in terms of performance and productivity – the research shows that gender balance in the top teams leads to productive and better performing organisations.

There is the negative impact on attraction and retention of talent.

Talented women are unlikely to be attracted to, or to stay, in organisations that don’t support their career advancement. This is not an ideal position to be in if “new talent battlegrounds” are imminent, as reported in a recent PwC global survey of CEOs. The report, The talent challenge – adapting to growth, found that 63 per cent of New Zealand’s CEOs were optimistic about the global economy and business revenue growth. The implications of that growth on talent management, however, was “keeping them awake at night”, with 80 per cent saying that availability of skills was a serious concern.

Then there is the issue of return on investment in development initiatives. If not addressed, the organisational cultural barriers that exist could potentially undermine significant investment being made across the sector in developing individual women in the “pipeline”.

A time for changeThe systemic barriers identified through this research are such that no one, single intervention will do. Addressing them will require both system-wide and individual agency interventions.

Because some HR leaders are not wholly convinced of the need for gender-specific interventions, the changes required are likely, in certain instances, to meet with a luke-warm response. Addressing gender diversity is not the sole responsibility of HR – research shows that change must be championed from the top – but

Gender balance in the public service – a perfect leadership opportunity


a strategic human resource management approach will be a significant part of the solution due to the organisational systems, processes and policies that sit within the ambit of HR.

This provides a challenge for those in positions of influence in the public service in terms of leading change. Increased awareness, acknowledgement and commitment from the most senior levels, including the State Services Commission, chief executives, senior managers, as well as supportive HR leaders, will be required to effect long-term, sustainable culture change across the sector

– along with a sustained focus and investment from each individual agency. The first crucial step in effecting change, however, is the will to make it happen.

Within individual agencies, it will take ongoing investment of both financial and human resources, and clear diversity targets along with measurable action plans to ensure a return on that investment, because, as the saying goes, “what gets measured gets done”.

Leadership opportunitiesNew Zealand was the first country in the world to give

women the right to vote – perhaps we should lead the way to become the first country in the world to have women proportionately represented in public service leadership? What might that do for our reputation and branding, for marketing our capital city, and for attracting and retaining the untapped reservoir of talent – not to mention the potential performance and productivity gains to be made across the sector?

There are opportunities for individual public service organisations to step up to the plate and show others how it can be done. And there is an opportunity for the HR profession also to show leadership in this space.

As former US Secretary

of State Hillary Clinton has written, “Women are the largest untapped reservoir of talent in the world. It is past time for women to take their rightful place, side by side with men, in the rooms where the fates of peoples, where their children’s and grandchildren’s fates, are decided.”

The report, Gender Balance in the New Zealand Public Service: Why are there fewer women in the top roles and what needs to change? A strategic HRM perspective, can be viewed at www.luminousconsulting.co.nz/#!research/ctzx. The report is also available on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ bibliography “Inspiring action” at www.mwa.govt.nz/inspiring-action.

This apparent aversion to gender diversity initiatives and the prevalence of unconscious bias are potentially the two most important barriers identified through the research.

http://www.luminousconsulting.co.nz/#!research/ctzx

http://www.luminousconsulting.co.nz/#!research/ctzx

http://www.mwa.govt.nz/inspiring-action

http://www.mwa.govt.nz/inspiring-action


Superintendent Sandra Manderson, New Zealand Police

Why did you choose the public sector?I was six when I decided I wanted to be a police officer! I grew up in Sumner where there was always a community police officer. I liked the idea of working in the community and not in an office.What were some of the things you did to prepare for working in leadership roles? I tried to get practical experience and also did an MBA so I had a management and leadership qualification. In the Police we work our way up via the rank structure. I consciously took leadership roles and at times stepped out of my comfort zone to do them. You have to be confident and competent to succeed.Do you think your journey has been different as a woman? In the Police, women are still a significant minority. The opportunities are there but there has been

slow progress for women moving to the top ranks. To succeed, it is important to set your own personal and work goals, which is something I’ve always done. You have to recognise your own skills and contributions and highlight the things you’re good at. Women bring different qualities, very positive qualities, to policing; we often deal with things differently. Working for the Police doesn’t suit everybody’s family situation, but we have policies in place to accommodate flexibility.Are there any tips you have for new professionals entering the public sector? The public service offers amazing opportunities. You have to set your own goals – it’s not about what they can give you to put on your CV, but about how you can positively contribute. Take on different roles or move around different agencies to gain experience. It’s also very refreshing starting in a new position. I’m very pleased I have a career in the public service.

Taking the lead: Women in the public sector

Clare Ward, Chief Executive, Families Commission

Why did you choose the public sector? It sounds cliché, but making a difference is impor-tant to me. My degree was in geography, cover-ing issues like housing and social policy. I have always been interested in people and society, so I began my career in social housing.What were some of the things you did to prepare for working in leadership roles?I didn’t consciously prepare for my first manage-ment job, but I looked for opportunities to do new things and get involved. Since getting my first management role, I have consciously worked on my development as a leader. My best learn-ing has been on the job, applying new skills and taking stretch assignments. I have coaching and am always looking for ways to develop myself.

Do you think your journey has been different as a woman? My partner and I have had to make choices; we’ve worked together so that I can combine family and children. I’ve also had to build on my presence and self-confidence so that I feel confi-dent in any setting. This might be true for male leaders as well. I have always worked in the social sector where there are more women. Are there any tips you have for new professionals entering the public service? Be prepared to move around and try everything you can. It’s good to develop breadth and depth, working on different topics, policy and opera-tional, local and central government and other sectors. By doing this you’ll focus on results and understand other people’s perspectives.

MARGARET MCLACHLAN spoke to three women leaders about why they have chosen to work in the public sector and what advice they would give to new professionals – men and women – entering the public service today.

“Be prepared to move around and try everything you can.”

“The public service offers amazing opportunities. You have to set your own goals...”


Rebecca Kitteridge, Director, New Zealand Security Intelligence Service

Why did you choose the public sector? I was a lawyer in the private sector for nine years, and I got a lot out of that experience in terms of client focus, time management and professional standards. When I moved to the Cabinet Office as a legal adviser, I experienced the joy of working in the public inter-est rather than just advancing the interests of particular clients. Going to work each morning and thinking about the New Zealand constitution, democracy, the rule of law, the balance of power, and ethics seemed like a total privi-lege. I knew I had found my spirit-ual home. What were some of the things you did to prepare for working in leadership roles? I sucked the marrow out of every-thing the Leadership Development Centre offered: the Leadership in Practice course (life-changing); action learning groups; listening to visiting speakers; and reading books on organisational devel-opment and change, coaches,

mentors … you name it. The secondment to the Government Communications Security Bureau to undertake the compliance review was also very important. It moved me out of my comfort zone and let me apply my skill set to problems in a completely differ-ent context. The understanding I gained about the New Zealand intelligence community positioned me very well for the NZSIS role. Do you think your journey has been different as a woman? For me, there are three aspects to this question. The first aspect is whether I have experienced the journey differently, as a woman. It’s hard to say, of course. One thing that has dogged me until recently is “imposter syndrome”, which I think is mostly (not entirely) a girl thing connected with confidence. I’m glad to say that is behind me now. The second aspect is whether I have been treated differently as a woman as my career has progressed, and the honest answer is that I don’t think so. There was a patch a few years ago when very few women were appointed as chief executives, and I worried then, but the leadership model that the State Services Commission has developed suits women and men

equally and so we have seen lots of women appointed to CE roles in recent years. The third (connected) aspect to this question is work/life balance. My husband has supported me in my career and has been the main person looking after our daughter (now 11) since she was four months’ old. My husband takes care of most things on the home front, which means that the time I spend there is mostly qual-ity time with them both. I recognise that I am extraordinarily lucky. Are there any tips you have for new professionals entering the public service?

I have three:

1. Play with a straight bat. The public service is small and people will learn if you don’t play straight.

2. Give credit where it’s due, and own your mistakes if they are yours. You will look better to your manager, believe me.

3. Always try to make your relationships stronger by talking to people in person or on the phone whenever possible rather than emailing – especially if you have something difficult to say. Talking is a much richer form of communication.

“Always try to make your relationships stronger by talking to people in person or on the phone...”

© T

ertia

ry E

duca

tion

Com

mis

sion

© N

yla

Stra

chan

, DOC

, 200

9

© T

ertia

ry E

duca

tion

Com

mis

sion

© L

inw

ood

Com

mun

ity C

entre


In early August, Murray Sherwin, Chair of the New Zealand Productivity Commission, presented a speech at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government Annual Conference in Canberra, Australia. He discussed several key findings from the NZPC’s final report on regula-tory institutions and practices that was published on 16 July 2014. Below are excerpts from his presentation.

“When undertaking an inquiry into regulatory institutions and practices, the NZPC was asked to provide sugges-

tions on how new regulations and regulators should be designed; how to improve the way regu-lations work; and how to better monitor the performance of regulators.

The context for this inquiry included recognition that: We regulate a lot, and it is costly. The New Zealand Parliament is busy. It sits for only around 90 days each year, but in that time passes four times more public Acts than the UK Parliament manages. We have occasional regulatory fail-ures, with big consequences.

We face increasing complex-ity from growing diversity – of expectations and risk appreciation and risk tolerance; rapid change, especially technology driven; inconsistencies in our statutes with respect to: institutional form of regulators; appeal rights;

consultation obligations; Treaty of Waitangi provisions; and fund-ing mechanisms. Complex regu-lation is often poor regulation. And poor regulation undermines administrative fairness, social cohesion and a sense of political legitimacy.

Key findings

Quality controlEven after 15 years of experience, our process of regulatory impact analysis is not robust. Analysis of the merits of regulatory inter-ventions versus alternative policy responses is too often weak, as are the assessments of the effi-cacy and costs associated with regulation.

Parliament’s Regulations Review select committee meets for only one hour per week, when the House is in session. It has little more than one dedicated policy researcher to support it and its membership has declined in recent years from eight to five MPs. It operates with perfectly adequate guidelines and criteria

for assessing the merits of new or existing regulation, but struggles to ensure that those guidelines are applied in practice.

The Law Commission is an independent body chaired by an eminent Judge.1 It draws upon a very satisfactory list of principles and criteria to assess the qualities of new statutes. In 2013, the Law Commission judged that more than 50 per cent of the bills it reviewed had significant deficiencies. The Law Commission’s work in this area has been curtailed more recently due to resourcing challenges. But regulators cannot deliver better regulation than their legislative frameworks allow.

Delegation of powersNew Zealand’s Parliament is generally loath to delegate rule-making powers to regulatory bodies. So our statutes include more detail than is typically found in other jurisdictions. Two-thirds of the chief executives of regulatory agencies we surveyed reported that the statutes and regulations they are charged with implementing are obsolete or not fit for purpose. Given the limited time available in the House, the work of “repairs and maintenance” of existing law tends to be low on the list of priorities.

A solution to this issue of maintaining the currency of regulation is to focus the content of statutes on the purpose of the law and the principles to be applied in implementation,

1 The Law Commission provides independent advice to the Legislation Advisory Committee on every government bill introduced to Parliament, advising of any public law issues or discrepancies with the Cabinet approved legislation guidelines.

and delegate the creation of more detailed regulations and rules to a lower body, usually the regulator – with appropriate transparency and checks, of course. When we asked members of the Regulations Review Committee why there was not more delegation, the MPs replied that putting detail in primary legislation provided accountability and certainty for citizens.

Does limiting delegation or discretionary decision-making by regulators provide better regulatory outcomes or greater certainty? I would say “no”, especially as technology and markets evolve so quickly. It is only this year that consumer legislation in New Zealand has been updated to provide customers of internet-based professional traders with the same protections enjoyed by people who purchase the same goods from a brick-and-mortar store. Being certain about a forthcoming regulatory decision is poor compensation for it being wrong or inadequate as a consequence of the limitations of an obsolete statute.

Evaluation and reviewAcross a number of our inquir-ies we have found weak capabil-ity for, and limited attention to, evaluation. There is little to guide a post-implementation review of whether a particular regime is achieving its intended outcomes – we are soft in specifying upfront what would constitute success.

There have been a number of attempts in recent years to boost stewardship obligations of departments for the regulatory regimes they administer or oversee, but these initiatives have struggled to gain traction in the face of other priorities and

Better regulation: Are we achieving it?

What is it?


”

limited follow-up from central agencies.

Regulatory failures – common themesRegulatory failures matter for a couple of reasons. First, there are consequences, sometimes catastrophic. But second, regulatory failures frequently result in further layers of regulation and often added complexity.

In the course of our inquiry, we looked closely at 18 examples of regulatory failure in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand. In collaboration with Professor Julia Black of the London School of Economics, we reviewed the reports from the official inquiries into those failures, looking for the common themes. Common themes evident in this review of past major regulatory failures range from lack of clarity about the roles of the regulators, to poor risk assessment and enforcement.

Skills, training and professionalismImplementing regulation is an increasingly challenging task, and the academic thinking around good regulatory practice is an evolving field. Recently, Julia Black and Robert Baldwin of the London School of Economics have argued that while responsive regulation or risk-based regulation describe the approach regulators should take, they do not have a great deal to say about how a regulator should deal with resource constraints, conflicting institutional pressures, unclear objectives or changes in the regulatory environment.

Black and Baldwin advocate a “really responsive” approach, involving an analysis of the motivations, interactions and institutional environments of the regulatory actors in regulatory regimes.

As the regulatory task becomes

more sophisticated, regulators must become more skilled. When we asked the CEOs of New Zealand’s regulatory agencies about the capability of their regulatory workforce, around 20 per cent thought that they faced significant skill gaps amongst their staff. When we asked the regulatory personnel themselves, and businesses regularly engaging with regulators, the perception of inadequate skills and training was far more widespread. Our analysis pointed to a need to lift the professionalisation of the regulatory workforce.

A good deal of New Zealand’s regulatory activity is carried out through Crown agencies, at arm’s length from ministers. Each of those Crown agencies is allocated to a core government department and subject to monitoring by the department. Crown agencies also typically have an external board for governance purposes, and some have statutory independence from ministerial involvement in their regulatory functions.

Our inquiry found a good deal of dissatisfaction by regulator board members with this monitoring function. Few felt that the monitoring effort of the lead department was adding much value either to the minister or to the Crown agency itself.

Key recommendations

We made 44 recommendations in our final report. These can be broadly grouped into four main themes.

The first theme is stronger ownership and leadership from the centre. A senior minister in Cabinet needs to be given responsibility for the regulatory system. Their job would involve identifying areas of risk in the system, setting priorities or objectives to raise its performance,

and allocating tasks to achieve those objectives. To carry out this role, the minister would need more active support from central agencies, and we recommended an expanded and more prominent role for the Treasury in regulatory policy and management.

The second theme is a greater focus on improving the quality of legislation. If New Zealand is to continue basing its regulatory regimes heavily on primary legislation, it’s important we get its design right. We recommended a review of the quality checks and processes surrounding the preparation of laws, including regulatory impact analysis and external reviews by bodies such as the Law Commission. We also believed that more use of exposure drafts of bills – as often occurs in Australia – would help identify and iron out problems in draft legislation. And we saw a case for looking back over existing statutes to check whether the right balance had been struck in allocating tasks and powers between primary and secondary legislation.

The third theme is greater professionalisation of the regulatory workforce. A great deal of valuable effort has been put into building capability by senior regulatory leaders, but this has depended on the dedication and professionalism of individuals. Our view was that these efforts needed to be given greater support from the government and made a permanent part of the public sector landscape.

We recommended that the government clarify and strengthen its expectations on regulators to develop their staff and to work with other regulatory agencies in building their capability.

Although each regulatory agency and task is different, there are a number of common activities, challenges and themes across the system. Given these commonalities, we believe that there is room to appoint a “head of profession” to provide intellectual leadership and promote good practice for the regulatory workforce.

And the final theme is review and evaluation. We need more of it, and we need to put more effort into targeting the most important regimes for review. We also need to extend the scope of review and evaluation. Much regulation is implemented and enforced by arm’s length bodies, but as I noted earlier, oversight and review of these organisations could be improved. We proposed that a process of peer review be set up for regulatory agencies, in which senior leaders from other regulators would assess their performance. This would also have the benefit of helping encourage a community of practice amongst regulators. Finally, there needs to be greater transparency about the existing processes being used to promote better regulation. The full speech is available at www.productivity.govt.nz.

http://www.productivity.govt.nz


POINT OF VIEW

In August, I had the pleasure of speaking at the IPANZ New Professionals conference. It was an inspiring two days.

In fact, I joked at the conference that I came out of it younger than I went in, but that’s how it felt. The energy in the room was infectious.

Before the conference gets too far behind us, I want to share some of my insights about the new faces you might see in the public service.

Doing goodOver the years, there has been a shift in what young people are looking for in a university education. When I got started in the late 1980s, it seemed like many of our top students wanted to work for big multi-national corporations. Students still want to operate on the world stage, but now many are seeking to find roles in trans-national non-governmental organisations. They want exciting careers, but they also want to make a difference for the broader society.

While the idea of “public service” is strong and resonates with many of our students, they do not feel they need to work within the “Public Service” to accomplish their goals. I have come to think of this generation as a “lower-case generation”. They are interested in high aesthetic experiences and ideas; they seem to move fluidly in their academic and professional experiences; and they tend to gravitate towards distributed forms of leadership. As a generation, they also seem to have neither the veneration for, nor the counter-culture contempt of, established institutions and hierarchy. I see young

people who want to make choices that are personal and right for them.

For most of our students, there also seems to be a focus on finding an interesting role once they’ve completed school, as opposed to worrying about what organisation that role is with. This means the notion of “career” has changed from joining the right organisation and moving up, to finding the right role that leads to the next right role.

Interactive democracyIn my first weeks in this position, I went along to one of the classes offered to undergraduates called Government, Law and Business. It’s a course that is organised by the School of Government for all Victoria Business School students. The class I attended was a short history of New Zealand’s public sector, presented by Dr Russell Harding from the School of Government. The class had about 300 students (mostly 18- and 19-year-olds) in it and was being taught at the unenviable time of Friday afternoon. I sheepishly admit I didn’t have high expectations for attentiveness among the students that afternoon (after all, it wasn’t that many years ago I was a student).

Dr Harding gave an incredibly compelling speech. He told stories about individuals in the public service and the massive changes our public sector has been through over the years. He also discussed the underlying tenets of our public sector and how those have benefitted New Zealand. At the end of his presentation, he had 300 students giving him a spontaneous ovation. I was

heartened by that experience and it made me further question the perceived “disengagement” of this generation that the media and social commentators sometimes seem to foster.

There is an absolute need for civic literacy in New Zealand, but what Dr Harding and his students demonstrated to me is that there is also an absolute eagerness for it. The onus is on those of us who have gone before to make sure we are sharing these stories and instilling the values of a strong democracy.

Adapting to changeAt the School of Government, we are adapting to ensure that our programmes are as fit for purpose today as they were when they were created. One change for us includes looking at ways to better integrate our professional Public Management and Public Policy programmes. We want to focus more on systemic thinking across these two disciplines and make sure students are coming out of the programmes with the knowledge, skills and dispositions they need to be successful. Another change across all of our programmes is that we are putting a much stronger emphasis on leadership development.

We are also looking at ways to broaden how our students see public service. This means working with our colleagues in other parts of the university more closely. It also means engaging with our wider communities differently. For example, it’s important for our students to understand how policies are developed. To do that, they need to be able to work with policy advisors, decision-makers, and with the people who affect and are affected by specific policies.

We live in challenging and exciting times. Our goal is to make sure our students are prepared to enter a rapidly changing, increasingly globalised work environment. We want them to have what is required to become the public service leaders of tomorrow whether that’s with an upper-case “P” or a lower-case “p”.

The public service – the next generation By Professor Brad Jackson, Head of School, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

IPANZ New Professionals conference 2014.

Make a date with IPANZ

www.ipanz.org.nz

in

IPANZ events are a great way to learn about emerging issues in the public sector, to develop professionally, and to network with colleagues. In our spring series, the winners of the 2014 Public Sector Excellence Awards will share their experiences and lessons learnt.

Public Sector Excellence

Award Winner – Police Model: Prevention First

7 October

Talent-spotting in the Public Sector:

Government Chief Talent Officer22 October

Workshops and training

courses on political processes

Auckland network events

Wellington seminars

‘Meet the Chiefs’ New Professionals breakfasts

ps sept 2014 final all web

Documents

t i o n n e w z e

n i s t r

public sector content

n drngai tmatanuipublic

j o u r n

authorspublic sector

changing public service

management new zealanders