Public Sector dec 2014

December 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: © Angkawijaya92 | Dreamstime.com – Highway No. 1 On Auckland

PUBLISHERThe Institute of Public Administration New Zealand

PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand Phone: +64 4 463 6940, Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ipanz.org.nz

ISSN 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]

CONTRIBUTORSCarl BillingtonJohn LarkindaleMargaret McLachlanRose NorthcottJohn O’LearyLawrence Yule PROOFREADERNikki Crutchley

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]

DESIGNJ&K Design

PRINTINGLithoprint

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 is-sue. 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 factual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur.

Environmental justice in CanterburyPages 22–23

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

IPANZ news: Exploring How Auckland Works .........................................................3 Top public management student recognised ........................................................3

Cover story: Interchange – where central and local government meet ......... 4–9 On the road: NZTA and local communities .............................................................7 Innovation at the nexus............................................................................................9

NZ Police – the search for excellence ...........................................................10–13

Better Public Services and digital transformation ........................................14–16

The Whitehall Effect ...............................................................................................16

In brief: Productivity Commission – inquiry into using land for housing ...........17 Audit committees in the public sector ..................................................................17

Where politics and the public service meet – a conversation with Michael Webster ........................................................18–19

Future gazing and the public sector ..............................................................20–21

Environmental justice in Canterbury ............................................................. 22–23

Point of view: Intergovernmental collaboration: Why central and local government need to work together for New Zealand to prosper By Lawrence Yule, President, Local Government New Zealand .........................24

NZ Police – the search for excellence Pages 10–13

V o l u m e 3 7 : 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4

2 Public Sector December 2014

Following its lack of success in this year’s general election, the Labour Party is undertaking a thorough

review of its approach to the campaign and has just elected a new leader. It seems timely, therefore, to reflect on the role of the opposition in a Westminster-style democracy such as ours in New Zealand.

There is probably little argument with the proposition that an essential role for the opposition is to hold the Government accountable for its actions through the parliamentary process. Another role is to set out policy alternatives and to make the case for why these are better than those of the Government. But does this mean that the default setting for the opposition should always be one of being against what the Government proposes? I suggest not.

Looking around the world, we see an increasing number of countries in which the political process is becoming more and more polarised. The most obvious case is the United States, where, as I have noted previously, the Democrat and Republican parties have moved so far apart that there is virtually nothing on which they agree. The result is congressional deadlock. In the United Kingdom, too, there is significant polarisation, albeit of a different kind, namely the increasing split between those

who would take the UK out of the EU and those who disagree. In addition, there is a major divide between those parts of the country that consistently vote for the Conservatives and those that vote for Labour. Elsewhere in Europe too, we are seeing increasing support for political parties espousing more sharply defined policy platforms.

There is always a debate that can be had as to whether the emergence of these new, often less tolerant, political forces reflect societal views or whether they are a catalyst for changing those views. The reality is that probably both factors are important. The key outcome, however, is that there is a diminution of an electorate-wide support consent environment for the government of the day.

I believe that in New Zealand today there still remains broad agreement on the central principles that should underpin our society. New Zealand is a market economy in which individual enterprise is encouraged to flourish, but also one in which we all, through public sector engagement, wish to ensure that the disadvantaged and vulnerable are given sufficient support and assistance to allow them to participate actively in everyday life. By and large, despite the gap growing between advantaged and disadvantaged over the past quarter century or

so, most New Zealanders are still motivated to support the concept of a fair society as a fundamental guiding principle.

This broad consensus is important, in that it leads to the main grounds for political debate being means and not ends. This should result in a far less divisive political playing field than if there were no such agreement. But as we have seen to some degree during the election campaign just past, this is not always the case.

I would put out the proposition that the people of New Zealand would be better served if our political leaders would be prepared to acknowledge the principle that there are a significant number of areas on which there is wide agreement on fundamental policy elements. This is already tacitly acknowledged as is shown by the fact that both major parties recognise the need to gain support from the political centre if they are to be part of the next government.

A practical consequence would be that there would be more opportunity to debate and examine the means by which policy should be implemented. It would result in greater stability, in that big policy changes would have wider political support and, hence, would be far more likely to endure a change of government. In today’s increasingly complex world, new policy takes a long

time to roll out and is always costly. Big swings make it more difficult to achieve agreed policy outcomes and very often result in the loss of significant public investment for little gain.

Greater confidence in the broad direction of major policies would be likely to have economic benefit. Increased investment flows to destinations that have stability and reduced political risk, leading to new employment opportunities. In turn, this would support the implied social contract underpinning our system of government.

I am not suggesting that the major political parties should become clones of each other and that differences of approach should be ignored. Far from it. What I am advocating is that there should be serious and focused discussion among major parties to seek to reach agreement wherever possible on broad economic and social policy outcomes, so that these can be pursued consistently over the long term with a better chance for success. At the same time, let there be constructive debate on what might be the best way of implementing those policies; sound analysis of competing ideas is much more likely to result in fit-for-purpose ways of achieving the outcomes desired by all New Zealanders.

Is this too idealistic? Perhaps, but it is nevertheless worth reflecting on the fact that most New Zealanders respond better to constructive ideas than they do to negative criticisms. Most New Zealanders showed in the 2014 election that they preferred incremental to radical change. As a people, as our move to MMP illustrates, most New Zealanders prefer consensual approaches to the more confrontational ways of past politics. I would like to see our political leaders respond accordingly.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

The role of the opposition is always to oppose…right?By IPANZ President John Larkindale

Fletcher, David 1952– :"These people should be locked up and the keys thrown away!!!"The Politician. 3 April 2014. Fletcher, David, 1952- :[Digital cartoons published from 2001 onward]. Ref: DCDL-0027740. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/33724950


IPANZ NEWS

Top public management student recognisedNathalie Harrington was

recently awarded the IPANZ Public Management Prize for top marks in a third-year course in public management at the School of Government, Victoria University.

Dr Michael Macaulay, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies and Associate Professor (Public Management) says, “Our winner is the richly deserving Nathalie Harrington, who was a genuinely brilliant student. I’m really pleased she is being recognised.”

Nathalie did the public management course last year, as part of her BA in Public Policy

and Chinese language, and she’s been conjointly study-ing Law. Advised by Victoria’s careers advisers to pick up Public Policy at level 2, she says it works well with studying Law.

“Public policy makes so much sense having done law. It helps you consider practical solutions to ‘here’s a huge problem; how can we fix it’.”

One of her assignments was to work with other students to write a mock conference paper considering the results of two of the Better Public Services targets.

“I liked the Public Management paper. It gave you

practical tools, such as how to write a Cabinet paper, so that you could step into a policy advisor role in a government department.”

Nathalie is a tutor for the introduction to public policy, and also property law. She’s been part of the Law School’s Wellington Community Justice Project, which offers research and legal education, for three years.

Nathalie’s got her future mapped out. She has a summer research role within the Law School, looking at Māori jurisprudence; and will graduate mid-2015. She has six months

of travel to look forward to before starting work at Russell McVeagh in 2016.

IPANZ sponsors the Public Management Prize (worth $500) to show its support for the next generation studying governance and public policy.

Exploring How Auckland WorksWellington public servants gained a

greater understanding of how Auckland governance works at an IPANZ seminar in November.

“We organised the How Auckland Works seminar because we saw a knowledge gap,” says IPANZ General Manager Lewis Rowland.

“Wellingtonians need to understand how Auckland works and why central government needs to engage differently with Auckland.”

One of the speakers at the seminar Paul James, Deputy Chief Executive of Policy, Regulatory and Ethnic Affairs at the Department of Internal Affairs says, “Auckland matters and, in many respects, it’s different to the rest of New Zealand.”

Another speaker, Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer at Auckland Council says, “New Zealand’s success depends on Auckland’s success. If Auckland succeeds, New Zealand will succeed and if Auckland fails, New Zealand will fail. Auckland gener-ates one-third of New Zealand’s GDP. It is unusual for a country to have one centre with such a big influence on the economy.”

Blakeley says, right from its formation, Auckland Council wanted to have a highly collaborative relationship with central government.

For example, legislation that set up the Auckland Council prescribed the development of a regional plan to take into account the economic, cultural and social needs of the city for the next 20 years. Auckland Council led the development of the Auckland Plan, includ-ing collaboration with the then Ministry of Economic Development.

“The Auckland Plan is one of the best in the country. It’s been well peer reviewed interna-tionally,” Blakeley says.

Paul James says local government has devolved decision-making powers. Councils can set rates and make choices without refer-ence to government.

“But from a citizen point of view, they don’t really care whether central or local govern-ment fixes their problems. This requires central and local government to be really joined up. We all must consider, ‘What do we want to achieve for businesses and individuals?’”

The seminar featured case studies, involv-ing local and central government collaboration – Special Housing Areas and the Auckland Economic Development Strategy.

Blakeley says, “On the housing front, we signed the Auckland Housing Accord and set up the Housing Project Office, a one-stop

Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer, Auckland Council and Paul James, Deputy Chief Executive, Policy and Regulatory and Ethnic Affairs, Department of Internal Affairs.

office for housing issues. And with economic development we ensured the Auckland economic strategy was aligned with the Government’s growth agenda.”

The seminar attracted about 70 participants from 25 different govern-ment organisations, local councils and private companies.


Local authorities have the challenge of serving their communities on the one hand, while also implementing many of central government’s regulations on the other. Editor SHELLY FARR BISWELL takes a closer look at the relationship between local and central government to find out how it’s working.

The Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for key legislation establishing

our system of local government, its funding and process for elections and the counterpart of the Official Information Act, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. As DIA Deputy Chief Executive Paul James says, the DIA’s interests include ensuring the overall local government system performs well and is fit for purpose.

“While councils are account-able to their communities rather than central government, if done well, constructive dialogue between central and local govern-ment should deliver significant benefits to the Government, local authorities and wider New Zealand,” he says.

Local Government New Zealand Principal Policy Advisor Mike Reid says it’s a complex relationship, however, and is influenced by the status and role of a local govern-ment system, the trust that has been built up between the Government and local govern-ment’s peak bodies and the

nature of mutual expectations.“Local government is under

constant tension between meet-ing citizens’ expectations and their willingness to pay, while also carrying out their regulatory responsibilities. While this is a natural – even healthy – tension, it’s exacerbated by the fact that local government in New Zealand has a very high level of constitutional uncertainty.”

Reid says that as a “creature of statute” local government is not embedded in New Zealand’s constitutional fabric – a condi-tion that colours the relation-ship between central and local government. It’s a relationship that is unusual in the developed world, with even Australian states having an explicit mandate for local government.

“In New Zealand, essen-tially local government serves at the discretion of Parliament. Historically, councils have been able to exercise considerable discretion, but recent legislation has given central government a broad and unprecedented ability to involve itself in council deci-sion-making and this also sits in the background of how central and local government interact,” Reid says.

To provide more certainty and transparency in the local and central government rela-tionship, LGNZ would like to see an accord between the two. It’s an approach that has worked to good effect in places like Scotland and Canada.

“An accord would allow the government of the day and local government leadership to articu-late the overarching objectives,

accountabilities and expectations over the course of each parlia-mentary term.”

The accord could underpin the local and central government forums that have been held since 2000. The annual forum (they used to be held biannually) brings together the prime minister and key Cabinet ministers from the Government and the LGNZ leadership that comprises about 12 mayors and 2 regional coun-cil chairs to discuss key issues for the year.

“An accord could make the annual forum more produc-tive and would then serve as an opportunity to check in and cali-brate our work programmes,” Reid says.

The idea of an accord falls along similar lines as a recommendation from the New Zealand Productivity Commission in their Towards Better Local Regulation (May, 2013) for the development of a Partners in Regulation protocol to better guide central and local government engagement.

In its July 2014 written response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendation, the Government said, “The value and effectiveness of a formal joint mechanism, however, are ques-tionable, and improvements can be achieved without one.”

Instead of a formal protocol, the Government noted that improvements would be made to the Cabinet Office Manual, Cabinet Guide, and other central government guidance and documentation. “Recommendation 5.2 [Partners in Regulation protocol] brings

Interchange – where central and local government meet

© F

rank

Lin

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m


>

attention to the lack of reference in the Cabinet Office Manual to the need to consult effectively with local government during policy development (while the Cabinet Guide and other secondary guidance does). To resolve this, the Cabinet Office Manual will be amended.”

Although it seems the refer-ence will also allow for a contin-ued sense of impermanence with the response going on to say, “If any mechanism to improve collaboration between central and local government is devel-oped, this will be reviewed peri-odically, and in collaboration with the local government sector. It is unlikely that any mechanism for local and central government collaboration will seek to bind the signatories.”

In terms of updating central government documents, the Treasury revised its Preliminary Impact and Risk Assessment template in July 2013. The template now includes an additional prompt for departments to consider whether the options being considered would have significant costs or benefits on local government. The revised template also requires

departments to consider whether there is a possibility that local government will be expected to implement, administer or enforce any options.

The regulatory conundrumAs the Productivity Commission noted in its final report, local government regulatory activity sits within a wider regulatory system, stating, “the regulatory system as a whole determines the quality of regulatory outcomes”.

Is the system working? According to the findings of the Productivity Commission, not as well as it could be.

“Some of the problems stem from the design of regulations at the central government level, some are problems with the way regulation is implemented and administered by local government and, lastly, there are generic weaknesses with the regulatory system as a whole.”

The Productivity Commission found at the core of many of the problems is the relationship between central and local

government. For local government, there is frustration that central government agencies “lack respect for, and understanding of, local government’s role and purpose”. For central government, there are concerns around monitoring and enforcement, along with delays and inconsistency in

regulatory performance. As the report notes, “The

uneasy interaction between central and local government is having a detrimental effect on New Zealand’s regulatory system.”

Mike Reid also believes the response to “fix” the regula-tory system has so far been to be more prescriptive and to add complexity which limits the abil-ity to innovate and be flexible. Ironically, at the same time the regulatory environment appears to be more risk averse, there’s a growing international aware-ness that place-based responses to issues are more effective (see the interview with David Albury on page 9).

Mike Reid, Principal Policy Advisor, Local Government New Zealand


> continued on page 8

“When the Local Government Act 2002 came into effect there were about 375 pages to the Act, today there’s about 550 pages and that’s with the recent amend-ments that were meant to reduce some redundancies in reporting,” he says.

In fact, the regulatory environ-ment includes about 30 pieces of primary legislation spelling out the bulk of local government’s responsibilities and a number of secondary pieces of legislation impacting on other regulatory activities.

For central government all this regulation can provide an increased sense of confidence. Based on the Office of the Auditor-General’s overall findings through the annual local authority audits this quest for confidence may be warranted. As Auditor-General Lyn Provost noted in her overview of the results of the 2012/2013 local authority audits: “Near enough is not good enough.”

She writes, “Although I consider that communities are well served by their local authori-ties, my Office has observed prac-tices – often practices that have evolved over time – that are out of step with statutory require-ments. Many of the actions might, in themselves, seem minor, but their cumulative nature risks

undermining the reputation of an individual local authority and the reputation of the sector.”

However, for local government the current legislative environment can be stifling.

As Mike Reid explains, “It’s easy to forget that someone on the other end of all those regula-tions needs to monitor them and ensure they are implemented as intended. It’s a huge job and it seems there is often an inverse correlation between complexity and accountability requirements and the ability for local authori-ties to effectively implement those regulations.”

Interestingly, the “weighti-ness” of the regulatory envi-ronment for local government seems to be symptomatic of a wider issue as the Productivity Commission’s more recent report ( July 2014) exposed when look-ing at New Zealand’s regulatory institutions and practices.

As Murray Sherwin, Chair of the New Zealand Productivity Commission, said in his speech at the ANZSOG Annual Conference in Canberra, Australia recently (see September/October issue), “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 face increasing complexity 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 funding mechanisms. Complex regulation is often poor regulation. And poor regulation undermines administrative fairness, social cohesion and a sense of political legitimacy.”

Closing the loopTo address at least part of the issue in our regulatory environ-ment, when the Government released its response to the commission’s report, Local Government Minister Paula Bennett also announced the establishment of the Rules Reduction Taskforce to “weed out pedantic and unnecessary rules that frustrate property owners and councils alike”.

This spring, the minister

announced that the Rules Reduction Taskforce is to be jointly chaired by Jacqui Dean MP, Parliamentary Private Secretary for Local Government, and Michael Barnett ONZM, Chief Executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. Other taskforce members are to be an-nounced shortly and will include central and local government experts, and specialists from the building and trades sector.

As part of the Rules Reduction initiative, citizens can now go online (www.govt.nz/rulesreduction) and submit examples of property regulations and local rules that seem out-dated or onerous.

The information gathered through the initiative will be considered by the taskforce and will inform its analysis and recommendations.

Getting it rightAccording to the Productivity Commission’s report, a circuit breaker is needed to “reset” the relationship between central and local government “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which the regulatory system operates”.

© L

ucid

wat

ers

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m -

Recy

clin

g St

atio

n Ph

oto

“Many of the issues that the local government sector deals with require central and local government to work together if good outcomes are to be achieved in areas like affordable housing, economic development and environment-related matters.”

One of the agencies earning praise from local authorities is the New Zealand

Transport Agency. Recently NZTA released its Funding Assistance Rates. The FAR spell out how central government land transport co-funding will be distributed over the next nine years.

With the release of the FAR, Local Government New Zealand President Lawrence Yule thanked NZTA for its “exten-sive engagement with councils across New Zealand on the changes” and welcomed the “clarity this announcement brings on the available share of funding for local and regional roads”.

Engagement doesn’t always mean complete agreement, and as Yule said on the release of the FAR, “Not all members will be happy with the decisions but the balance struck appears generally fair given the funding pool available. The Agency’s role is to allocate the fund-ing pool provided by Government and Government’s role is to set the size of the funding pool.”

Over the next nine years co-funding from NZTA will account for about 53 per cent of roading costs, with the rest made up mainly through local funding.

Engagement and clarity on funding is just one aspect of NZTA’s commitment to working with communities. As a major asset manager, it is also working with local authorities to meet the Government’s goals as set out in the National Infrastructure Plan. The plan calls for ways

to build resilience into the national infra-structure networks to cope with signifi-cant disruptions, including major storms or gradual impacts such as sea-level rise.

An important aspect of NZTA’s work is centred on engaging with local authorities in coastal areas where road disruptions can mean entire communities are cut off from crucial services.

“Major storm events experienced throughout the Northland region have significant adverse effects on the commu-nities that rely upon the safe and efficient operation of the state highway network,” NZTA Principal Environmental Scientist David Greig explained during a presenta-tion he gave at the New Zealand Coastal Society’s annual conference.

“The NZTA is taking steps to trans-late the expectations for effective coastal management into practical planning and delivery tools to assist those responsible for managing state highway infrastructure in the coastal environment,” he says.

The NZTA is working with local authori-ties and other stakeholders to develop a draft Coastal Effects Assessment Guideline as one of those planning tools.

“The guideline has been drafted to help infrastructure managers and deci-sion-makers to better understand coastal issues and their impact on assets, such as roads and bridges.”

The guideline is made for practitioners and uses checklists and a risk assessment process to create a picture of the asset and the coastal environment.

“It provides a systematic way to collect information on risks to assets and the surrounding coastal environment for both short- and long-term asset management. Importantly, it also walks users through a process that ensures they are looking across the entire section of a network, instead of just an isolated location,” he says.

The more comprehensive approach means that NZTA and local communities can use adaptive management based on different scenarios and consider wider issues beyond just the structural integrity of an asset.

“It’s a more holistic approach where communities can consider route security in case of disruptions, as well as planning for housing, economic development and social services in a more integrated way,” Greig says.

The planning approach builds in community engagement and requires ongoing dialogue between central and local government.

“Finalising this guideline and developing similar resources will help build resilience in our highway network and make sure local communities are better served.”

On the road: NZTA and local communities


An important aspect of NZTA’s work is centred on working with local authorities in coastal areas where road disruptions can mean entire communities are cut off from crucial services.


The Productivity Commission went on to identify four areas where interactions between central and local government needs to improve.• There needs to be recogni-

tion that local authorities are co-producers of regulatory outcomes.

• Incentives need to be in place to support rigorous policy analysis and accountability to ensure quality advice on regu-latory issues is provided.

• Central government agencies need to enhance their knowl-edge of the local government sector and increase their capa-bility to undertake robust implementation analysis.

• Central government needs to engage in meaningful engage-ment and effective dialogue

with local government early in policy development processes.

A new era?The Government’s Better Local Government initia-tive was announced in 2012 and has already included two sets of changes to the Local Government Act 2002. The first changes were enacted at the end of 2012 and the second round of amendments came into effect on 8 August 2014.

Together, the amendments make significant changes around development contributions, annual and long-term plan-ning, infrastructure and asset management planning, and public consultation requirements. The amendments also include provi-sions that enable the Local Government Commission to

establish local boards (similar to those in Auckland) as part of new unitary authorities, and in exist-ing unitary authorities and create council-controlled organisations and joint committees as part of a reorganisation scheme.

The amendments are expected to encourage more collabora-tion and shared services between local authorities, as well as to sharpen governance and consulta-tion processes. There’s also a focus on strengthening reporting obli-gations, particularly assets, with the introduction of new require-ments for infrastructure strate-gies and asset management plan-ning requiring disclosure of risk management arrangements for physical assets in annual reports.

Since the passage of the amendments to the Local Government Act, the DIA’s work on the Better Local Government programme has focused on supporting the implementation of the legislation. This has included publishing guidance for devel-opment contributions commis-sioners and technical guidance for local authorities, including an example infrastructure strategy, along with more general informa-tion for the general public.

What the amendments do not address directly, however, is when and how central and local govern-ment should engage. It may be a missed opportunity, but it may also be that there are better ways than regulation to address this issue.

In fact, Mike Reid is fairly optimistic about future interactions.

“Quite a bit comes down to who the Local Government Minister is and how the Government wants to engage with local authorities. To give you a sense of the importance of that leadership, after we had one of our first forums with the prime minister at the time [Hon Helen Clark], the next day we heard from agencies we had been trying

to get through to for months that suddenly had a directive to work on several local and central government shared objectives.”

Reid says the current Local Government Minister Paula Bennett is engaged and commu-nity oriented, which can have great bearing on local govern-ment’s ability to have access to officials and to see real progress in work programmes.

“We are also seeing a number of agencies, such as the New Zealand Transport Authority, that are taking a proactive approach to work-ing with local authorities and are getting better results because of that interaction. It just takes a few wins for both central and local government to see the bene-fits of working together.”

In addition, as part of the DIA’s leadership role across local government issues, DIA Chief Executive Colin MacDonald and Society of Local Government Managers President Barbara McKerrow, jointly chair a Central Government Local Government Chief Executives Forum. The forum includes chief executives from government departments with an interest in local govern-ment issues and chief executives from a number of local authori-ties. The forum provides the opportunity for the chief execu-tives to discuss and work through strategic issues of common concern.

As Paul James says, “Many of the issues that the local govern-ment sector deals with require central and local government to work together if good outcomes are to be achieved in areas like affordable housing, economic development and environment-related matters. Better outcomes can be achieved through the two spheres of government working effectively together, while recog-nising the different roles they play.”

A brief historyNEW ZEALAND has had a system of local government since the 1840s, although the framework that local government has worked under has changed dramatically through the years.As Mike Reid sets out in Rethinking the State Sector Act:

Before 1989 there wasn’t a single local government voice. There were at least three local government organi-sations – the counties had their voice, the urban munici-palities had their voice, and the catchment authorities and regional councils had their own voice.

It wasn’t until just before the local government reforms that those voices were merged into a single voice for local government. This change meant that central government had a way of entering dialogue with local government at one place and one time. This change was quite an impor-tant step in building a relationship between central and local government.

With the government of the day’s focus on contractual-ism in the 1990s, local government was generally seen as a service-delivery provider. Governments through those years were much more interested in the things that local govern-ment did rather than local democracy or local government as a sector…

In 2002 things changed significantly. The Labour-led government at the time introduced the Local Government Act. One of the aims of the Act is to promote a partnership between central and local government. The idea of spheres of government having to work together to deal with meaty issues was well accepted and has continued through the 2000s.

Innovation at the nexusRecently, David Albury, who is a Board Director for the UK’s Innovation Unit, came to New Zealand to discuss radical innovation in the public sector. We were able to talk with him about the importance of working across levels of government and if he had any insights into how New Zealand is faring in this area.

How and why do different levels of government need to work together to bring about positive and lasting change? This is an important issue, which fundamen-tally gets down to achieving significantly better outcomes for significantly lower costs. There has been a trend over the past 10 years towards more place-based experimentation in the public policy sphere. With that experi-mentation has come a gradual realisation that because citizens – the people who the poli-cies are intended for – are organised around communities, place-based policies are often more effective and relevant. This means that both central and local government are criti-cal to successful policy development and implementation.

At the local level there is a need to test and refine policies that are appropriate in a community context, as well as to champion the changes. At the national level, there is a need to look for ways to generalise policies so there can be national uptake, while at the same time building in ways that policies can be adjusted based on local circumstances.

This entails a bottom-up approach to policy-making. It requires local authorities to look for authentic solutions to challenges their communities are facing. For central

government, it requires supporting local solutions and making those solutions scalable. Central government also has an important role to play in brokering relationships and building communities of practice in areas such as health, education and the environment.

What are some of the barriers to innovation when it comes to working across levels of government?Radical innovation is a new way of work-ing. There’s not so much a barrier, as a lack of awareness on how to “get started”. From my experience, some people are naturally more sceptical when starting out on a project together, but with the right tools and the right methods, using “disciplined innova-tion” the barriers that might exist early on in a project seem to give way pretty quickly.

What’s essential is that when tackling an issue, both central and local government are involved from the outset. There needs to be a commonality of purpose and their needs to be continuous engagement throughout.

When working with communities we emphasise a focus on outcomes, appropri-ate engagement, ethnography, co-design, strengthening user networks, and co-deter-mining use of resources. A similar approach

should be used across agencies and levels of government.

Can you provide an example of the impact a joined-up approach can make?Like other developed countries, the UK has a burgeoning number of patients living with chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, depression and asthma, that require a differ-ent solution than the acute diseases that our healthcare system was initially set up to address.

We knew there was a growing prob-lem that required a radical solution both to improve the quality of life for those patients living with chronic health condi-tions and to reduce the fiscal strain on the National Health Service, so we developed a programme called People Powered Health. The programme supports the design and delivery of innovative services for people who are living with long-term health conditions.

The programme was rolled out in several communities across the country to empower patients to be responsible for their own care – a fundamental shift in thinking and prac-tice for patients and healthcare providers. Instead of being passive recipients of care, People Powered Health puts patients in the driving seat. Professionals use their clinical expertise to facilitate better health outcomes both directly and through linking patients to wider support networks. The programme has seen impressive results from better health outcomes and improved quality of life to reduced A&E visits and the number of planned and unplanned hospital visits.

At the national level, we are working with agencies to develop flexible policies to support this approach and to find ways to make the programme scalable. We estimate that if the programme could be scaled up it would save the NHS £4.4 billion annually.

Any insights about the relationship between local and central government based on your recent visit?The work that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Auckland Council are involved in with the proposed co-design lab is very exciting. This is precisely the joined-up approach that’s required to deal with real problems using a place-based approach. To learn more visit www.innovationunit.org or follow David Albury on Twitter @davidalbury.

David Albury, Innovation Unit. All rights reserved.



NZ Police– the search for excellenceThe New Zealand Police have had a number of successes this year, including exceeding their Better Public Service targets and attracting a number of awards at the 2014 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards for the various initiatives under their Policing Excellence focus. Writer CARL BILLINGTON looks at some of the changes that took place behind the scenes to make those successes possible.

Policing Excellence is a change programme that was initiated at the end of 2010 and has seen Police focus on crime prevention, building

closer partnerships with communities and related agencies, and drawing on the latest technology to improve the way they deploy resources.

“Policing Excellence has revolutionised the way we police and brought huge improvements in the results we deliver to the public we serve,” New Zealand Commissioner Mike Bush says.

“Policing Excellence and the Prevention First operating model that underpins it have made us more mobile, visible, efficient and effective than ever before and our communi-ties safer places to live, work and play.

“This strategy means a reduction in the economic and social costs associated with crime, while reducing harm experienced by New Zealanders – and the use of tools such as iPhones and iPads has meant staff have the ability to work ‘on the go’ rather than

having to head back to a station.” It’s an approach that’s led to some solid

results as well. Police have exceeded each of their initial targets that were set for the Policing Excellence programme – achieving a 20.1 per cent drop in recorded crime, 5.8 per cent increase in prevention activities and a 41.3 per cent reduction in non-traffic pros-ecutions; against targets of 13 per cent, 4 per cent, and 19 per cent, respectively.

Creating this sort of success relies on gain-ing buy-in across an organisation; it can’t just come from the leadership team. To achieve this, Police relied on several key ingredients: clear and constant communication; clear and measurable targets for what they wanted to achieve; opportunities for staff to engage and help shape the development of the project from the start; and clear demonstrations of how the changes would add value to front-line staff.

“Policing Excellence required a cultural and mindset shift away from being largely reactive and offender focused to being prevention and victim focused,” Bush says.

“The fact we have been able to implement such a demanding programme so successfully while retaining high levels of staff engage-ment and increasing the public’s trust and confidence in Police is a testament to the commitment and professionalism of all NZ Police staff.”

Hutt Valley Justice Sector Innovation ProjectWhile the Policing Excellence programme provides the umbrella for the changes Police

have achieved, the Hutt Valley Justice Sector Innovation Project is an example of how these shifts in thinking towards a prevention focus have also filtered through to how Police work together with other agencies.

Inspector Mike Hill, Prevention Manager for the Wellington District, leads the Hutt Valley initiative. He says the way policing is done has significantly changed and adds that “given the benefits we have just continued to work this way”.

The Hutt Valley Justice Sector Innovation Project was an initiative of frontline cooperation across multiple agencies that set out to reduce and prevent crime in the Hutt Valley. The project won the Public Sector Excellence Award for Achieving Collective Impact this year.

The project has been so successful that the model is being expanded into three other locations across New Zealand. In addition, workshops have been held around the country to encourage all justice sector frontline managers to adopt a similar approach in their communities and regions.

The seeds of the project began with the Justice Sector Leadership Board that was first established in 2011 to help drive performance across the system and coordinate major programmes and planning across the sector. It’s comprised of the chief executives of Police, the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections.

“It was at a leadership retreat on 10 July 2012,” Hill recalls. “The Leadership Board was looking for new approaches and was

© N

zgm

w27

88 |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

- Ch

ristc

hurc

h Ea

rthq

uake


WN18809

Public Sector Powering into 2015The election brakes are off and it is now full steam ahead into 2015. Key public sector initiatives are underway and demand for the best policy, communications and project management professionals is at an all-time high. Here is what we think is going to be in hot demand in 2015:

Policy Managers and Senior Policy Analysts – The high demand for top quality policy professionals continues which is good news if you are thinking about the next step in your career? We are working with a number of managers motivated to fill their vacancies this side of Christmas. To register your interest please contact Kirsty Bidwell at [email protected]

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 or call us on 04 499 9471.

Katerina MakariosKirsty Bidwell Georgina Makarios

>

“Policing Excellence has revolutionised the way we police and brought huge improvements in the results we deliver to the public we serve.”

keen for something led by our frontline operational arm of the sector. I was asked to pull together a group that spanned Police, Justice, Corrections, and Child Youth and Family [Ministry of Social Development] and we decided to focus on the Hutt Valley as a pilot site.”

“The first stage was to do an initial stock-take together. We began in September 2012 and were due to report back by 20 November 2012 with a summary of what was currently being done in the area, as well as what we would like to be able to do.”

Building trust“Working through the stocktake together changed everything. It blew away our assumptions about each other and we learned more about each agency at both a strategic

and a local level,” Hill says.“We each had our own

targets to achieve. For us it was reductions in crime, reducing prosecutions, and increased proactive activity – we just assumed all the other agencies all knew that and understood our main drivers.

“We realised that across the agencies we are often dealing with the same people and the same problems – but we had been viewing them through each of our own individual agency lenses.”

As the team worked through the stocktake together and grew in their awareness of each agency’s work, the opportunities for collabo-ration became clear.

“We began building stronger relationships very quickly – as people were learning about something you would often hear them say, ‘That’s a wonderful initiative – maybe we can join that?’

“As well as learning from each other,

we also sought input from stakeholders in the communities we serve too. That was really interesting as we discovered that they assumed we were already working this way – as one integrated public service. In the end, we settled on 10 initiatives we wanted to focus on together and we took that back to the Leadership Board,” Hill says.

In many ways that was the first test for the project, on both sides.

The project team had shown it could deliver, having turned the stocktake and report around in a short time frame. The next test was seeing whether anything would come of it.

“The Leadership Board endorsed all of the recommendations and gave us permis-sion and support to do the work. So through-out 2013 we focused on implementing the 10 initiatives.”

“That level of permission and endorsement for grassroots, frontline-led suggestions

IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards 2014 winner

New Zealand Police Commissioner

Mike Bush


Public sector excellenceThis year, the New Zealand Police won the Prime Minister’s

Award for Public Sector Excellence and Excellence in Improving Public Value through Business Transformation for their programme Prevention First at the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards.

They also were joint winners along with the Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand Defence Force, and Inland Revenue for the Excellence in Improving Performance through Leadership Excellence for a cross-agency leadership development programme.

They received the Excellence in Public Sector Communications Award for their Safer Summer speed enforcement campaign. And were recognised, along with the Ministry of Justice and Department of Corrections, with the Excellence in Achieving Collective Impact Award for their work on the Hutt Valley Justice Sector Innovation Project.

was critical. We felt close to the Leadership Board, but we were not micro-managed. Good leaders create the environment for others to deliver within and they did just that. That set the tone for the whole project,” Hill says.

Commissioner Bush reinforces the emphasis on empowering others in his reflections on some of the things they have learnt from the overall Policing Excellence approach.

“Put staff at the centre of all decisions. Don’t start with the technology; start with understanding the needs of those affected by any change. Engage as early as possible and involve them in coming up with ideas and solutions. Maintain good levels of communication and provide opportunities for staff to provide feedback and be involved in testing new systems, processes and technology.

“Leadership at all levels of Police was critical. For example, one of the key things we did during the mobility project [the roll out of iPads and iPhones] was to engage and empower district champions, who varied in rank and position across all 12 Police districts, to support and mentor their colleagues through specific change processes.”

Creating a new culture“We have gone from talking about the 200 or so Police staff in the Hutt Valley, to talk-ing about the 800 or so Justice Sector staff,” Inspector Hill observes, reflecting on some of the shifts that have been created as a result of the initiative.

“People are talking and think-ing more in terms of sectors now, rather than individual organi-sations. Things are being sorted by a few phone calls or even text now that would have taken months before.

“You can’t write a memorandum of understanding that says you will trust each other. You build that trust by working together and understanding each other’s world. As new people came on the project they received a very clear induction that ‘this is how we do business’.

“We have built a really strong peer support network across the agencies which has enormous benefit. And the team has had to achieve all this while managing business as usual and with no additional funding. Team members have a lot to be proud of,” Hill says.

“We were meeting monthly as a whole group, dealing with the business and there were a lot of second and third order effects and benefits we started to see.

“Taking a sector approach we’ve also been able to develop staff and give them experience across the sector, rather than just in our own agency. We saw our own staff coming together around the targets in our own agencies too. It was such a positive experience for everyone,” Hill explains.

“The Operation Relentless campaign [focused sector-wide operations] was a great example – mobilising all agencies together on a single crime driver, we achieved much

greater reach together. It was much more efficient.

“It was the same with the Raising Achievement and Attendance in Youth Sector initiative. This initiative grew beyond the four core agencies and we ended up working together with local iwi, the rūnanga, and the community law office as well. Not only did truancy reduce, but lateness reduced as well. It was a great outcome.

“I recall talking with one of the iwi leaders who said to me, ‘You should have been doing this all along’. He was absolutely right. The difference now though was that we had the trusted relationships and the permissions in place to make this possible,” Hill says.

Making it lastUltimately, this became about much more than meeting a new set of challenging, short-term targets. It became a whole new way of working. It wasn’t without challenges, but in the process the team has established a sustainable approach to working across organisational boundaries in ways that benefit our communities and is now working to implement similar practices in other areas.

Commissioner Bush reinforces this perspective, “Thanks to the changes we have made, we are now absolutely focused on preventing crime and meeting the needs of victims. We have harnessed the latest tech-nology to deploy our resources in the right places, at the right times, and we are building

Inspector Mike Hill, Prevention Manager, Wellington District


valuable and enduring partnerships with our communities and partner agencies to address the causes of crime and crashes. As a result, we are able to reinvest freed-up time into crime prevention activity and better support for victims.

“There were, of course, challenges, but these were overcome with the support, commitment and agility of all NZ Police staff who saw the merits and benefits of making Policing Excellence a reality.”

Inspector Hill adds, “Relationships are key but these also need to be supported by a robust project management methodology with clear accountability, clear targets and clear timeframes. It can’t just be about us or rely on specific personalities – otherwise it isn’t repeatable. Once you’ve got the shared systems and support in place, you can really focus on the relationships. I think we often underestimate how much can be done over a cup of tea with someone.

“The team exceeded its targets, built closer relationships and developed more efficient processes than they’d ever had, without any extra resources or having any work taken off individual team members or reassigned elsewhere. And team members had fun. It’s a sustainable approach that can last for years – it’s just become the way we work now.”

Communicating changeInitially the news media wasn’t too inter-ested in these initiatives, which forced the team to start managing the story and aware-ness – marketing directly to the communities in person and through community networks, rather than the media. This created a whole new set of connections, which had numer-ous benefits.

“It also led to the mobile office, which is perhaps one of the most visible examples of the collaborative approach for the community – it’s a multi-agency mobile van that is out in the community and carries 13 different logos on its sides. It’s really visible and tangible,” Hill says.

“This wasn’t about us – it was about the people in the communities who are trusting us to deliver a service. Many of these people we didn’t know and many probably don’t really want a direct relationship with the justice system.

“We have all grown in terms of our understanding of the sector – both the issues the sector faces and the many great things that are already happening across the sector,” Hill says.

“You can achieve so much more when you have the trust of your leaders as we did. You have got to play a long game and develop that rapport with each other.”

The futureReflecting on the changes that have been achieved under the Policing Excellence programme overall, Commissioner Bush says Policing Excellence was a vast strate-gic change programme with many moving parts – traversing new business processes and systems through to the need to train and equip frontline staff with new technology.

“The mindset shift to Prevention First and Victim Focus was a big challenge, but once staff saw the benefits of this approach the momentum gathered. Using real-world examples from the frontline helped tell the story. Ours is a 24/7 operation so understanding the varied environments our staff operate in and being able to address their concerns with valid solutions is vital.

“Maintaining staff engagement and enthusiasm over a long period was also challenging. This comes back to ensuring we communicated the right message, through the right channels at the right time. People talk of ‘change fatigue’. In Police, we’ve come to refer to it as ‘change resilience’ – we know we can do it if the change rationale and end game is sound.

“We are currently working on Police Excellence: The Future where we – in tandem with partner agencies – will look to make even further impact by doing things differently and better.”


Photos courtesy of the New Zealand Police.

The 10 Hutt Valley Justice Innovation Project InitiativesCross-sector Relationships

Audio Video Links for Courts

Restorative Justice

End-to-end Processing

Information Sharing

Review of the Family Violence Court

Mobile Office

Raising Achievement & Attendance in Youth Sector (RAAYS)Operation Relentless (focused sector-wide operations)

Māori Wardens in Court


© V

iole

tkai

pa |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

- To

uch-

Tabl

et In

Han

ds

How is the government addressing Better Public Services Result 10 – New Zealanders can complete their transactions with government easily in a digital environment? Writer JOHN O’LEARY reports.

Remember how you used to withdraw money at the bank? You would write a cheque to

yourself, take it along to a branch and cash it. And remember how you checked your bank balance? You would wait till the monthly statement arrived in the post, or else make another trip to the branch to ask for your balance that day.

Today, after two decades of continuous technological innovation, such activity seems quaint. Thanks to the Internet, much retail banking is now carried out online, instantly and conveniently. It’s becoming rare to write a cheque, and up-to-date account balances are available on your computer screen any time of the day or night. You can even arrange a mortgage online – an

unheard of notion even a few years ago.

The revolution in retail banking illustrates how quickly and effectively an industry in the private sector has capitalised on the potential of the digital environment to offer seamless, customer-focused service. It’s a subject the government has been thinking about. Why can’t citizens interacting with ministries and agencies enjoy similarly instant, convenient service?

According to Peter Newell,

Programme Manager Digital Transformation at the Department of Internal Affairs, there’s no reason. “The technology exists. It’s just a matter of updating the way we think about how citizens and government interact in their dealings with each other. Governments in other countries in the developed world, such as the UK and Denmark, are moving in the same direction, and are putting in place a variety of measures to make such digital interaction the everyday norm.

“In Estonia, in particular, this

Better Public Services and digital transformation


>

shift to an online environment is very advanced.” [For more on Estonia’s digital revolution, see sidebar story.]

The idea of seamless, customer-focused government services lies behind Result 10, the final component of the Better Public Services programme instituted by the Government in 2012. Result 10’s goal is to see 70 per cent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with government being completed in a digital environment by 2017. It’s an ambitious target, says Newell, but achievable, given that almost 40 per cent of such transactions are already done digitally, and the percentage is steadily rising.

As an example of what’s happening already in this area, Newell points to SmartGate, the automated, digitally based customs service offered by New Zealand Customs which many travellers will be familiar with from leaving or arriving at the country’s main airports. “Originally, only those over 18 could use the service, but now children 12 and over can too. Latest figures show that just

over half of travellers leaving or arriving at our main airports used SmartGate, up about a third compared to last year.”

“Another good example of what’s already been achieved comes from the Inland Revenue. Latest figures show that over 87 per cent of tax returns are now filed digitally.

“Other transactions which are steadily shifting online include things like renewing an adult passport, paying a fine, renewing a vehicle licence and applying for an immigration visa.”

Easier accessBenefits for the citizen of this shift to digital interaction, it is predicted, include easier access to government services, increased satisfaction with those services, and greater uptake of entitlements by eligible customers. Benefits for government include

reduction in the cost of service-delivery infrastructure, reduced per-transaction costs, and greater realisation of objectives in terms of entitlement and compliance.

To help guide this step-change in how citizens interact with government, a Digital Services Council has been set up comprised of representatives from eight government agencies: DIA; IRD; Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; New Zealand Customs; New Zealand Transport Agency; New Zealand Police; Ministry of Social Development; and the Department of Conservation. The DIA acts as the overall lead agency, and a governance group composed of general managers, chief information officers and the like meets every month to govern the council’s activities, which include reporting, funding and the provision of advice. Two large ministries – Health and

Education – are not represented on the council to date, though in time they too will be contributing to the transformation envisaged in Result 10.

Councils, governance groups and ministries: it sounds complicated and bureaucratic, but the ultimate aim is simple – to offer citizens easy, hassle-free access to a range of government services relevant to them and their situation.

“In the past,” says Newell, “if you had to deal with the government in relation to a significant life event – the birth of a child, say, or immigration to New Zealand – you have had to know which government agencies to contact and then go about

An image of how New Zealand might look in five or 10 years in terms of its online interactions

is provided by Estonia, a Baltic nation that was for many years part of the Soviet empire.

When that empire fell apart in the late 1980s, Estonia was faced with the problems inherent in being a country of small size and few natural resources. If the government was going to offer its citizens Western-style services, it was going to have to do it cheaply and efficiently – hence the decision to opt for online interaction.

Today, Estonia is one of the most digitally connected nations in the world. Using a national identity card embedded with a microchip in conjunc-tion with a PIN, Estonians can gain access to thou-sands of services, including banking, business registration and even fishing licenses. Tax returns are filed on the web within minutes, and about a third of voters cast their ballots online.

A digital vanguard – Estonia ©

Evd

oha

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m

ATMs in the indoor bus station, Estonia, Tallinn,

2014.

“The system is being designed so that people remain in control of how much information they are willing to have shared... To a great extent it will be up to the individual as to how ‘online’ they want to be in terms of their interaction with government.”

Separate, but connectedEstonia also relies on a government-run technology infrastructure, called X-Road, which links public and private databases into the country’s digital services. All personal information is kept on separate servers and behind distinct security walls of government agencies, but the system allows the state and businesses like banks to share data when individuals give consent.

Estonians do not seem overly worried that their privacy might be compromised. “If we had a centralised system, it would be a privacy concern,” said Taavi Kotka, Estonia’s chief information officer. “But nobody has the whole picture. Everything is separate, but connected.” Source: New York Times, “Estonians Embrace Life in a Digital World”.

Peter Newell, Programme Manager Digital Transformation, DIA


getting in touch with each one. The process could be confusing and time consuming. The idea now is to make a package of relevant government services easily and conveniently available online. Soon, for example, you will be able to register a birth via a website, at the same time acquiring a tax number for the new child.”

The next step will be to integrate things like social entitlements (if the child or family are eligible) into the birth registration process.

“It’s government operating in a seamless, joined-up fashion and making it easier for citizens to interact with the agencies they need to.”

But hang on, what about those members of the public who can’t or don’t want to interact with government digitally?

Not locked outGovernment, says Newell, recognises that there is a small

part of the population that prefers more traditional ways of interacting. “These people are not going to be locked out of government services. We are looking at different ways to support customers who want to interact with us in non-digital ways.

“A good example of this is the New Zealand Government Centre, Durham Street, Christchurch, which was set up following the earthquakes to cater for people who no longer had permanent places to deal with government. Visitors to the centre are met by staff and helped with their online interactions. Those who are unfamiliar with digital services get a chance to learn about them in a supported environment.”

This all sounds well and good, but a question does arise concerning the security measures surrounding this shift to online interaction with government, given the

possibility of fraud and, in particular, the creation of false online identities by ill-intentioned individuals.

Security“It’s a question the government takes very seriously,” says Newell. “Crucial to Result 10’s ambitious vision is the widespread adoption of RealMe, a secure authentication service formerly known as igovt. Currently, most people who use RealMe have a name and a password, so they can log in and access certain government web services.

“Over 30,000 people, however, have taken the next step and possess RealMe verified accounts, something which allows them to securely pass on information about themselves, such as their identity and address. Relevant personal information can then be shared between agencies, helping them produce the kind of seamless, joined-up service

envisioned by Result 10.“RealMe is key to the success

of Result 10, and we hope to see many more people setting up verified accounts in the future.”

For some people, of course, the large-scale sharing of digitised personal information between government agencies provokes troubling questions. Could it be another step along the way to a Big Brother surveillance state?

Newell acknowledges the concern, but does not see the shift to online interactions with government as something sinister. “The system is being designed so that people remain in control of how much infor-mation they are willing to have shared. If you want, you can opt out, though this may mean you do not receive the integrated service other people are getting.

“To a great extent it will be up to the individual as to how ‘online’ they want to be in terms of their interaction with government.”

The Whitehall Effect PUBLIC sector reform has been underway for 30 years in the UK. Author and longtime critic of the UK’s reform programme, John Seddon, has recently released The Whitehall Effect, how Whitehall became the enemy of great public services and what we can do about it.

In this book, Seddon looks at how successive UK governments have failed to deliver services to the public and exposes the problems that three decades of “political fads, fashions and bad theory” have caused.

Seddon says that behind the idea of a crisis in public services caused by mounting demand is the reality that the crisis is not generated by demanding customers, but by the failure of services to deal effectively with the customers the first time around. This creates the need for more contacts, more explanation and more activity which are all forms of failure demand.

He proposes that public services need redesigning, not cutting, with a deep understanding of the needs of citizens.

Seddon describes what this means in practice and encourages those who provide services to the public to engage with the experience of the customer.

Lord Victor Adebowale says in his foreword to The Whitehall Effect: “We need a new para-digm that puts the citizen/customer first, drives value into the lives of recipients and costs less… This is the chal-lenge behind what needs to be our 21st-century vision for services-to-the-public. The Whitehall Effect sets out the way we might deliver better services. It should be required reading for anyone who delivers a service to the public.”

Published by Triarchy Press.

In briefProductivity Commission – inquiry into using land for housing

In November, the Productivity Commission released an issues paper on its inquiry into using land for housing. The deadline

for submissions is 22 December 2014.

“Housing affordability is a key challenge facing New Zealand, especially in our growing cities,” said Commission Chair Murray Sherwin with the release of the issues paper. “The limited avail-ability and high price of land is a concern when housing is becom-

ing difficult to access for many. “Making it easier to access

and use land for housing is an essential part of any response. Our inquiry will look at options for sourcing land, including new developments on the edges of cities, as well as intensifying housing within cities. We will also examine the factors that limit how land can be used, including the availability of infrastructure.

“The ability to access and use land for housing is affected

by local government planning processes, such as District Plans, Long-Term Plans, resource consents, and local rules, such as height restrictions or minimum lot size rules. These processes help protect the environment and ensure communities have the services they need to prosper. But it’s equally important that they don’t unnecessarily restrict the supply of land for housing for our growing cities,” he said.

The Productivity Commission

will be focusing on the local authorities in New Zealand’s fastest-growing areas, but is interested in learning about good practices and approaches everywhere, including from overseas.

The Productivity Commission will release a draft report in May 2015 for submissions with the final report due to the Government on 30 September 2015. www.productivity.govt.nz

© R

escu

edav

e |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

- Ae

rial V

iew

Of S

ubur

bs P

hoto

Audit committees in the public sectorThe Office of the Auditor-General recently released a paper on

Making the most of audit committees in the public sector. As noted in the paper’s introduction, “In 2008, we published a good practice guide about Audit committees in the public sector. Since then, we have spoken to many people who have told us that the main challenge in making committees work is the dynamic organisation of people and issues”.

The purpose of this paper is not to provide another “best practice guide”, but instead to start a discussion “among all those involved with audit committees” with the aim of providing a way for people to learn from one another.

As part of the discussion, the OAG is asking people to provide feedback on the paper and consider the following questions: • Do our messages resonate with you?• Have we identified the issues that a public sector audit committee

experiences? What have we missed?• Is it clear how one might think about and explore addressing these

issues? What else would you suggest?• Are there any resources you use to help carry out your audit

committee role, or to address these issues, that we could recommend to others?

How people respond to the questions above will help the OAG in developing resources to assist the public sector in using audit committees to good effect. As the OAG has previously noted, “Audit committees have a valuable contribution to make in improving the governance, and so the performance and accountability, of public entities. They can play an important role in examining an organisation’s policies, processes, systems, and controls. An effective audit committee shows that an organisation is committed to a culture of openness and continuous improvement.”

Audit committees by the numbers• Over half (53 per cent) of the public entities the OAG

surveyed have an audit committee. • About 80 per cent of public sector audit committees are

considered effective.• Most ineffective audit committees do not have an

independent chairperson.• Key areas covered by audit committees include external

audit, financial reporting and corporate risk. Source: Making the most of audit committees in the public sector, OAG, 2014.



For the political aficionados amongst us, Michael Webster must have one of the most enviable jobs in the public service. Secretary of the Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council in the Cabinet Office, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, he attends the weekly Cabinet meeting, witness to the country’s most impor-tant political decision-making. As ROSE NORTHCOTT finds out, it’s a role where the public service and politics meet.

What does your job entail?As Secretary of the Cabinet, I support the prime minister and the Cabinet as a collective in the operation of the Cabinet system. And then as Clerk of the Executive Council, I support the governor-general and the prime minister in the conduct of their constitutional duties, and in the case of the prime minister, the head of government role.

Interestingly, my detailed job description and accountabilities are set out in the Cabinet Manual. This is because of the unique nature of these two roles, not least of which is I have particular independence within the broader DPMC. While I am accountable to my chief executive, I am also accountable to the prime minister and the governor-general for the work of the Cabinet Office.

What’s your relationship with the governor-general?I have the privilege of being the governor-general’s principal advisor on the conduct of his or her constitutional role. It is the governor-general’s role to appoint a prime minister after an election, and on the advice of the prime minister to appoint the other ministers. One of my roles is to advise the governor-general in that space, and around that time act as a liaison between him or her and the new administration.

I am also responsible for the team at Government House, who are focused on supporting the governor-general in his cere-monial, community and international roles.

How busy have you been following the general election?I have just been saying to my family that I have hardly had a day off since the election! That’s just the way it is. There is a lot to be done, whether it is following what happens on election night and advising the prime minister and governor-general, to ensur-ing they are well supported when it comes to the appointment of new ministers, or the opening of Parliament. During the period of government formation, and pre- and post-election, we issue a fair bit of guidance to public servants and ministers on constitu-tional procedures.

What happens once the new government is formed?Any new administration, including a returning one, is eager to hit the ground running. Our first job is to work with the prime minister on the resumption of normal Cabinet business, including developing the Cabinet committee structure and the meeting timetable, so full central government decision-making can get underway again. We are also focused on briefing new ministers to ensure they are well equipped to carry out their roles and functions.

As part of our role we have a legislation coordination function, supporting the leader of the House in the resumption of parliamentary business and planning for the following year. Around this time we also commence the process of assisting incoming ministers to identify and manage any conflicts of interest.

How do you facilitate the weekly Cabinet meetings?Cabinet normally meets on a Monday. I am there with my deputy secretary. We are the only two public servants who attend, which is an incredible privilege. My job is to ensure papers for discussion get to who they need to, to record the decisions, and to support the prime minister who chairs the meeting. I am not there to give policy advice.

You must be privy to some amazing discussions.All sorts of things are discussed at Cabinet. I remember sitting in an emergency Cabinet meeting, called after the second Canterbury earthquake. That was a very hard day for everybody. Whether it’s international relations or health policy, economic policy or budget proposals, it all washes through the system to Cabinet for final approval.

How do you maintain the integrity of the role in such a political environment?Where I work has an incredibly strong culture built around political neutrality, providing free and frank advice, and getting on and implementing decisions the Government makes. That strong culture is core, and critical to everyone who does this role, given the information we are privy to.

The other thing about the reality of my role is that I constantly have to be personally careful about commenting about most things, whether it’s what may be in the budget or the Government’s policy on vulnerable children. I don’t express an opinion, which can make me very boring at dinner parties!

What previous jobs have you had?I have had an interesting career, starting in 1989 after completing a BA (Hons) in poli-

Where politics and the public service meet – a conversation with Michael Webster


tics and history – I later completed a Masters in Public Management. I had a short time at Treasury and then went to the State Services Commission where a very wise senior public servant told me that in terms of career plan-ning I needed to broaden my experience. I thought that was very good advice and followed it. I spent around eight years with SSC with two years on secondment to the UK Cabinet Office. I then spent just under two years with the Department of Internal Affairs, followed by six years with the Wellington City Council as City Secretary. I joined the Cabinet Office as Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet (Constitutional and Honours) in July 2008, and was appointed to this role in March 2014.

Describe a typical dayOn a Cabinet meeting day I might arrive at work in the morning and deal with emails that have come in overnight from the other side of the world. We maintain an active rela-tionship with the office of the Queen of New Zealand on behalf of the prime minister, so there might be some emails from the Palace. I catch up on the Cabinet agenda with my deputy secretary. I then may meet with some of the team to discuss anything ranging from a matter about ministers’ interests, to some work we may be doing that has implica-tions for the wider Realm of New Zealand – covering the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.

Cabinet meetings vary in length but could last up to 3.5 hours. After the meeting I catch up with my deputy secretary to discuss anything urgent that needs to be processed quickly.

That might be followed by a discussion

with some of the team on a cross-agency exercise we are involved in, such as the process to consider changing New Zealand’s flag. In general, the Cabinet Office works closely with the rest of DPMC and a number of other agencies – such as SSC, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Crown Law, Visits and Ceremonial Office, Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Ministry of Justice – on a range of matters.

The Cabinet Office’s responsibilities in relation to the regulation-making func-tion of government mean that I could then have a discussion over any queries the House of Representatives’ Regulations Review Committee may have raised with us.

I will catch up with the team in the Honours Unit about anything ranging from how our protocols and conventions in the honours area are evolving to suit New Zealand’s own sense of national identity, to the process for finalising a Bravery Awards list, to dealing with a proposal for a new medal.

By now, the first of the fast-track Cabinet minutes will have arrived in my in-tray, to be approved, signed and distributed by the Cabinet Office registry as soon as possible.

Another meeting with the team, this time focused on providing guidance to ministers and their offices on the need to take care, when speaking positively about the objectives and achievements of a business, to avoid slip-ping into explicitly endorsing or promoting that business.

The Executive Council, of which all minis-ters are members, usually meets with the governor-general on a Monday afternoon.

Regulations and other Orders in Council are made there. I attend to facilitate the business of the Executive Council.

At the end of the day there is also a pile of non-urgent papers and Cabinet minutes in my in-tray. To meet my performance targets those minutes need to be signed and distrib-uted without delay.

That is just an average day. It’s the most fantastic job in terms of variety and pace and the interesting work that comes through my office on a daily basis.

The Cabinet Office is one of six units within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. With 22 staff, it has five key functions:• There is a secretariat function that

includes arranging meetings, prepar-ing summaries of papers, attend-ing meetings and recording the decisions. This function includes supporting the CabNet Project that is to digitise the paper-based systems used for receipt and distribution of Cabinet papers and minutes.

• Another function is focused on advis-ing the governor-general and prime minister on a range of legal, consti-tutional and other policy matters, for example, ministers’ interests, port-folio responsibilities and delegation queries, relationship with the head of state, and the exercise of consti-tutional responsibilities.

• Another aspect to the role is supporting the leader of the House in setting and managing the Government’s annual legislation programme.

• Still another function, includes supporting and advising the Government on the operation of the New Zealand Royal Honours System.

• Finally, there is a registry function that includes compiling and keeping the record of executive government.

Future gazing and the public sector



For this issue, we asked State Services Minister PAULA BENNETT and Labour State Services Spokesperson CHRIS HIPKINS for their views on some of the opportunities and challenges they see for the public sector. Below are their responses.

State Services Minister Paula BennettPeople often ask me what I think New Zealand’s great-est asset is, and my response sometimes surprises them. To me, it’s not our stun-ning scenery or envi-

able way of life. The greatest asset we have, in my opinion, is our size.

We are a small country, which means we are compact and connected. It also means that changes made on a national level, within central government, have a faster and greater impact on our citizens compared to bigger countries. This means we have an enormous responsibility as leaders in government and as public sector employees to get things right.

I am extremely excited to take on the role of State Services Minister. Our state sector is highly regarded internationally, thanks in no small part to the work that public servants do. It is also undergoing the biggest transforma-tion in a generation.

We now have opportunities across govern-ment to make a greater collective impact, a top priority for this Government. Our compact size should make this easy, but we face a big challenge in shifting the way we think and work away from the traditional ‘vertical’ system, with officials in one agency working up towards one minister, and back down again. This system works well in many areas, but it simply doesn’t translate when we need to collaborate across agencies to get better outcomes for people.

Our Better Public Services initiative has seen a sharper focus placed on the state sector than ever before, particularly on how we can be quicker, more flexible and collaborative. We are well on track to achieving targets in areas such as reducing welfare dependency and boosting skills, and have already exceeded the targets for reducing crime. There’s still work to do, and momentum is key to achiev-ing what we have promised.

Another big challenge lies in addressing the increasing complexity of New Zealanders’ lives, especially our most vulnerable. The services we design, implement and provide need to be flexible and effective to help

people navigate the wide range of issues they face on a day-to-day basis.

Part of this will involve getting smarter with how we use data and information, while also balancing people’s privacy rights. The development of the Vulnerable Kids Information System (ViKI) is a good exam-ple. As Social Development Minister I saw too many examples of child abuse occur-ring when more than one agency held a piece of the puzzle. The health worker knows the mum, the probation officer knows the dad, and the kindy teacher knows things aren’t right, but a child at risk of abuse can’t wait until they are assaulted before we join the dots. This has to happen before abuse occurs, and ViKI, along with predictive risk model-ling, are a crucial step towards this.

I want to see forward-looking and joined-up thinking, and action, happening in other places where people and government services interact, along with the involvement of iwi, community organisations and even businesses where possible.

Engaging better with people on proposals or policies that affect them is also a priority. Nobody knows better what works and what doesn’t than people using frontline services every day, so we need to make it easier for them to contribute ideas and options. This may mean changing our standard policy development process across government, it may mean creating new systems online for people to have a say, or it may mean some-thing completely new we haven’t thought of yet – something that really encourages people to engage in the government’s deci-sion-making process. This is a challenge I am excited about addressing, and I hope you are too.

There is no doubt agencies are working harder than ever to achieve better results for people. They are working collectively – across business units and departments – and they are finding new ways to work effectively. This is making a difference, but we are only at the beginning of what we can achieve. Ultimately, what is good and successful for people is good for government. As Kiwis we are connected to each other in so many ways, and as a public service we need to work to harness this asset, and use it in a way that truly helps people to get ahead.

Labour State Services Spokesperson Chris Hipkins

The reforms of the New Zealand public service in the late 80s and early 90s shifted the focus away from ‘inputs’ towards ‘outputs’. The challenge for the public service

today is to shift that focus further towards outcomes. Rather than looking at ‘what’ we are doing, we need to ask more fundamen-tal questions about ‘why’ we deliver certain public services and whether current modes of delivery are fit for purpose in the 21st century.

The current Government’s focus on a narrow range of better public service targets could hinder, rather than foster these types of deeper questions. Government depart-ments and agencies will be focused on meet-ing the numerical targets (which by definition are easily measurable) while some of the more fundamental questions remain unanswered.

For example, it’s all very well to focus on getting students to achieve NCEA level 2 qualifications, but what happens if they then leave school and end up on an unemployment benefit? A more holistic target would meas-ure what students are doing one, two and five years after their schooling has finished. It would be much more challenging to meas-ure, but much more meaningful. An immedi-ate challenge for the public service is how to quantify the unquantifiable in order to satisfy the current drive for greater accountability.

To meet the challenges of the 21st century, the whole public service needs to be better connected and more responsive to the needs of citizens. Despite recent reforms, too many agencies still operate within silos. Citizens should have easily accessible, single points of contact for a range of services and support. There is no excuse for one agency referring a citizen from one agency to another. The public sector needs to function seamlessly.

The Labour Party will be monitoring progress on the current Government’s Better Public Services targets closely, while also pointing out where the targets are deficient (for example, their emphasis on tertiary rather than primary and public health). We will continue to push for a more connected and responsive public sector, one that focuses on the needs of citizens, rather than the needs of the service itself.


The winner of the new Excellence in Regulatory Systems Award – introduced for the 2014 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards – was Environment Canterbury for its alternative environmental justice process, a first in New Zealand. Just how did Environment Canterbury take the idea of restorative justice and apply it to environmental crimes? IPANZ Communications Adviser MARGARET MCLACHLAN finds out.

Environment Canterbury’s Regional Planning Manager Brett Aldridge says the genesis of the

process came about due to the need to close a gap in the regional council’s regulatory toolbox. Options for dealing with people who commit environmental offences were limited to infringe-ment fines or prosecution.

“Fines were often too little and, while providing some deter-rent, are only of financial bene-fit to the regional council; and conviction can be disproportion-ate to the level of offending. We needed something in-between,” Aldridge says.

Many environmental offences

aren’t the result of deliberate or deceptive activities. Often the offence is the result of care-less attempts at land or water use when the person doesn’t realise the affect their actions will have on the environment. Environmental regulation can be complex and what is required to avoid environmental offending is often not well understood.

“We wanted a restorative process to include reparation and apology. If a person who commits an environmental offence wants to make amends, the commu-nity and victims affected should benefit. The traditional restora-tive justice process didn’t give us the opportunity to withdraw

charges where we could get a better outcome than prosecu-tion, so we combined the princi-pals of restorative justice with the Police Adult Diversion system,” Aldridge says.

This process had been evolving over several years. Aldridge gives an example of a story that occurred about six years ago: A South Canterbury farmer, on rolling hill country, decided to fence off streams to keep stock out. But his stock still needed water – and now the stream was inaccessible. He ploughed up the

centre of the stream to install a water pipe – seriously damaging the streambed and environs, which also supported an eel nursery.

Environment Canterbury laid charges and, with the farmer’s agreement, trialled a restorative justice conference with affected parties, including the rūnanga, Fish & Game New Zealand, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, and local farmers.

“It was a very powerful process; the farmer had to eyeball

Environmental justice in Canterbury

Outcomes through the Alternative Environmental Justice process can have positive results. In this case, the South Canterbury farmer paid for stream assessments, removed the exposed pipe, paid costs and agreed to a media statement about the offending. Ph

oto:

Env

ironm

ent C

ante

rbur

y.

Phot

o: D

epar

tmen

t of C

onse

rvat

ion:

Te

Papa

Ata

wha

i


the people he’d affected. It was hard for him – and at one stage he considered facing prosecution rather than proceed – but he’d bought into the process and saw it through.”

The offender paid for stream assessments, removed the exposed pipe, paid costs and agreed to a media statement about the offending.

Successes like this led to the formation of a rigorous process and set of criteria for Alternative Environmental Justice. Established in 2012, a total of 12 cases have now been through this process.

Aldridge explains that if an offence is deemed suitable for restorative justice, charges are laid before the District Court. The case can still proceed to prosecution if either party wants to opt out of the alternative process.

The offender and the victims attend an Alternative Environmental Justice conference.

Aldridge explains that it is possible to identify the victims of environmental crime. While

in most cases the environment is the victim, representatives can be identified to take part in the process, for example, Fish and Game, Forest and Bird, the Department of Conservation, and tangata whenua.

“The offender has to admit guilt, otherwise there’s no genu-ine desire for restoration.”

A third-party provider, such as Restorative Justice Services Otautahi or Project Turnaround Timaru, holds the conference between the offender and the victims, helps decide on a resto-ration plan, and reports back to the court.

The conference allows the victims to express their feel-ings and talk about the effect of the offending. It also allows the offender to express remorse and apologise. All parties gain an understanding of their positions and they agree on the remedia-tion steps.

“One problem with restorative justice is you need the mechanism to make sure any promises made actually happen. With this process we don’t withdraw charges until

the agreement is fulfilled, so the timeframe to make restoration is fairly short – usually six to nine months,” Aldridge says.

Examples of restoration by offenders include a roading contractor who had mishan-dled contaminated soil running a training programme for others in the industry; donations to stream care groups and a school wetland planting project; a farmer giving presentations to Federated Farmers of New Zealand groups about his mistakes and remedies and how offences can be avoided; and for a water theft offence, putting ads in newspapers.

Aldridge says they are starting to see the benefits of alternative environmental justice.

“The outcomes are better for the environment, for the community involved and for the offender. It helps build good, ongoing relationships.”

While there has been a reduc-tion in fines and convictions, greater benefits are being deliv-ered to the communities affected. It’s too early to measure any reduction in overall offences, but Aldridge believes increased awareness and understanding will contribute to a reduction in offences over time.

Environment Canterbury has been surprised by the way in which offenders have responded so positively to the process, espe-cially since it can be challeng-ing. As well as participating in the conference, some offenders have been willing to teach others about the experience – reflecting the genuine engagement that has been achieved.

Aldridge says it’s a model that could be used by other coun-cils and regulatory agencies in New Zealand but warns that it’s not an easy approach for a coun-cil to take.

“It can be a scary process to run. We ran it hard because we had a belief in it. It required something of a culture change at Environment Canterbury; it was as difficult to get internal buy-in as external. It’s been a long jour-ney, hard at times, but I think we are there. Winning this award has been a real boost.”

In identifying a gap in its regulatory toolbox and design-

ing a process to fill that gap, Environment Canterbury has shown that responsibility for environmental management can successfully be shared between local authorities and their communities. It comes as the public sector, particularly local government, is seeking better outcomes for communities.

“To implement such a process needs a certain philosophy and belief in that type of tool, taking a step away from the ‘tried and true’ methods. It is higher risk and you can be open to criticism. You must maintain your values and credibility, stick with your principles, and keep your eye on the outcome you want.”

Representatives from the Alternative Environment Justice project at the 2014 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards (left to right): Anne Columbus, Inspections and Enforcement Unit Manager, Christchurch City Council; Don Chittock, Programme Manager Strategic Programmes, Environment Canterbury; Dame Margaret Bazley, Chair, Environment Canterbury; Bill Bayfield, Chief Executive, Environment Canterbury; David Perenara-O’Connell, Programme Manager Ngāi Tahu Relationships, Environment Canterbury; and Iain Campion, Team Leader Data and GIS Information Services, Environment Canterbury.

“The outcomes are better for the environment, for the community involved and for the offender. It helps build good, ongoing relationships.”

“It required something of a culture change at Environment Canterbury; it was as difficult to get internal buy-in as external.”


Top left photo: The Alternative Environmental Justice programme may have positive effects for some of Canterbury’s ecosystems, including its braided rivers. Pictured is the Rakaia River.


POINT OF VIEW

Intergovernmental collaboration: Why central and local government need to work together for New Zealand to prosperBy Lawrence Yule, President, Local Government New Zealand

In unitary states like New Zealand, central and local government are creatures of Parliament, one established

to govern the nation, the other to govern our regions, cities and towns. Many responsibilities are quite unique to each sphere of government, for example, councils have little to say about foreign policy or defence commitments, while central government tends to stay out of decisions about the location of playgrounds.

There are, however, an increasing number of issues of mutual interest and concern, for example, water quality, youth employment and our ageing demographics. Many of these challenges are what are known as wicked issues, that is, issues that cannot be addressed by a single agency working alone. Addressing them requires commitment from both spheres of government, although it is not a new challenge.

Thirty years ago the New Zealand Planning Council published a research paper on the relationship between central and local government. Its title Paternalism or Partnership cleverly summarises the challenge local government systems all around the world face when seeking to build relationships with governments at the national or federal level. It also highlights Local

Government New Zealand’s objective to build a partnership with central government – a partnership based on recognition of the important role councils play in local and national development, as well as mutual respect for the quality of their performance in that role.

How does the relationship work?The relationship with central government is fundamental to our current business plan and occurs on a number of levels. On one hand, we regularly meet with ministers and senior officials in a variety of contexts to discuss proposed policies and regulations, as well as to provide information on the views and opinions of our members. On the other hand, we are working with councils to lead the sector and show that local government is committed to lifting its value.

One of our most important forms of engagement with central government is the Central Local Government Forum that occurs annually. Operating since 2000, the forum brings together relevant Cabinet ministers and LGNZ’s National Council for a half-day discussion on current and future issues of joint interest. The forum, which is jointly chaired by the prime minister and myself, as LGNZ’s president, provides an opportunity for frank discussion and a place to hammer out an

agreed plan of action. The forum sets the

framework for dialogue in other parts of the government. We have regular meetings with the prime minister and the minister of local government and meetings with other ministers as issues arise. A much wider and more varied series of interactions occur at an operational level with regular contact between chief executives and senior officials of both sectors. A critical theme for local government in these discussions is our desire to ensure that any new legislation or regulation that impacts on local government should be subject to consultation with councils before consideration by Cabinet.

The next stepThe next step for LGNZ is to move the relationship from an often ad hoc and reactive one to proactive and strategic. In our briefings to the prime minister and Government we have asked that a central and local government summit should be called together shortly after each parliamentary election to discuss and agree priorities for the coming parliamentary term. We see this as establishing a strategic vision for the nature of the relationship for that period.

Councils lead local communities and economies and want the certainty of knowing what the Government’s

priorities are likely to be. Apart from anything else we need this information when setting our long-term plans. There are also advantages for the Government as many of the issues they are likely to progress for the good of the nation are likely to involve localities and local government. Where overlapping issues exist it is important that both spheres of government are aware of them and can contribute to how they might be resolved.

Many countries around the world have incorporated the outcomes of these discussions into agreements or accords. In Australia, state governments now have signed memoranda of understanding with their respective local government associations setting out both the rules of engagement and agreed priorities, including how differences will be managed. LGNZ is keen to explore something similar for New Zealand – it would be the next step in strengthening our relationship with central government.

In light of the Planning Council’s question, I would like to think that we have made good steps in shifting the relationship towards a partnership; however, we still have work to do.

Managing natural hazard riskIN late October, LGNZ published Managing natural hazard risk in New Zealand – towards more resilient communities.

The think piece discusses some of the key issues involved with determining risk and developing responses that are appropriate. www.lgnz.co.nzhttp://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Publications/Managing-natural-hazards-in-NZ-LGNZ-think-piece.pdf)

Phot

o: N

ew Z

eala

nd T

rans

port

Aut

horit

y

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. Many are free!

IPANZ Annual Address Hon Bill English

19 FebruaryWellington

Demographic and economic change in NZ

NZIER’s Shamubeel Eaqub 24 February, Auckland 11 March, Wellington

Workshops and training

courses on political processes

Auckland network events

Wellington seminars

‘Meet the Chiefs’ New Professionals

breakfasts

The role and work of Superu

Families Commission CEO Clare Ward

4 March, Wellington

Public Sector dec 2014

Documents

Transcript of Public Sector dec 2014