Public Sector Volume 36:Issue 3

IPANZ events are a great way to learn about emerging issues in the public sector, to develop professionally, and to network with colleagues. Learn more about upcoming events, including: • New Professionals’ social and networking events• Auckland network events• Wellington lunchtime and evening lectures• Training courses, such as the Expert Series

IPANZ events – Join us

For event details or to register, visit:

www.ipanz.org.nz

September/October 2013 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 sIPANZ news...........................................................................................................................2–3

President’s message: Government rules, right? ...................................................................4 By John Larkindale, IPANZ President

Cover story .........................................................................................................................5–9.State sector reforms – the fine print

Outward facing – the Auckland Policy Office................................................................ 10–11

On message: It’s OK to Help ..........................................................................................12–15

Better Public Services – spotlight on government ICT ................................................ 16–18

Linwood Community Link – resiliency in action .................................................................. 19.

Tomorrow’s state services through the lens of leadership .........................................20–21

Small community, large problem – New Zealand’s productivity paradox .................22–23

Point of view: State sector reforms – a missed opportunity ............................................. 24 By Brenda Pilott, PSA National Secretary

Front cover image: Hand holding magnifying glass © Aleksandar Ljesic | Dreamstime.com

PublISherThe Institute of Public Administration New ZealandPO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand Phone: +64 4 463 6940, Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ipanz.org.nzISSN 0110-5191 (Print)ISSN 1176-9831 (Online)The whole of the literary matter of Public Sector is copyright. Please contact the editor if you are interested in reproducing any Public Sector content.edITorShelly Farr Biswell: [email protected] BillingtonBriar EdmondsJohn LarkindaleMargaret McLachlanKathy OmblerBrenda PilottMax RashbrookeProofreAderSNikki Crutchley Rose NorthcottJourNAl AdvISory GrouPLen Cook Chris Eichbaum, ChairSusan HitchinerJohn LarkindaleJulian LightMargaret McLachlan Ross TannerAdverTISINGPhone: +64 4 463 6940 Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected]&K DesignPrINTINGLithoprintScoPeIPANZ is committed to promoting informed debate on issues already significant in the way New Zealanders govern themselves, or which are emerging as issues calling for decisions on what sorts of laws and management New Zealanders are prepared to accept. INformATIoN for AuThorSPublic Sector considers contributions for each issue. Please contact the journal’s editor for more information.SubScrIPTIoNSIPANZ welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions. Please email [email protected], phone +64 4 463 6940 or visit www.ipanz.org.nz to register online.dISclAImerOpinions expressed in Public Sector are those of various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor, the journal advisory group or IPANZ. Every effort is made to provide accurate and fac-tual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur.

10–11 outward faCing

– The Auckland Policy Office

16–18

spotlight on government iCt

19 Linwood

Community Link

Vo l u m e 3 6 : 3 S e p t e m b e r / O c t o b e r 2 01 3

Looking outside inIAN Axford (New ZeAlANd) fellowS PreSeNT TheIr reSeArch fINdINGSThe elderly, students, and social en-trepreneurs were among the groups of people studied by this year’s Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellows in Public Policy.

In a series of public seminars held in Wellington in August, three practition-ers from the United States reported

their findings from their studies in public policy in New Zealand public sector organisations.

“Since 1995 the Ian Axford Fellowships programme has enabled valuable policy dialogue between American Fellows and their host agen-cies in New Zealand,” says Mele Wendt, Executive Director of Fulbright New Zealand, which administers the Ian Axford Fellowships on behalf of the programme’s independent board.

“This year’s Fellows have provided thoughtful insights, comparisons and recommendations in their respective policy areas, which we hope will inform

future public policy development in both countries.”This year’s Fellows included:• April Ferrino who researched

improving the quality of age-related residential care through the regula-tory process. She gave 10 recom-mendations on how New Zealand can support quality improvement efforts in age-related residential care. Ferrino is from Austin, Texas. For her fellowship, Ferrino was based at the Ministry of Health, Wellington.

• eileen HArriTy looked at vocational pathways that use industry partner-ships and personalised learning to increase student options. She looked at the implementation of the voca-tional pathways in New Zealand, focusing on how they were developed and what the Ministry of Education is doing in this area. She said the use of partnerships between policymak-

ers, educators and industry leaders has been key to the success of current pathways, but these partnerships also present some challenges. Harrity is from Chicago, Illinois. For her fellowship, Harrity was based at the Ministry of Education, Wellington.

• MAry Jo (MJ) KAplAn researched how to build the next generation of social entrepreneurs and start-ups in New Zealand. She said social enter-prise is growing rapidly in tertiary education in the US and she gave case studies and action steps to accel-erate opportunities in New Zealand, including developing a government policy and enabling framework. Kaplan is from Providence, Rhode Island. For her fellowship, Kaplan was based at the Ministry of Social Development and was also supported by the ASB Community Trust.

The seminars were jointly presented by IPANZ and Fulbright New Zealand. For more information see www.fulbright.org.nz

This year’s Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellows in Public Policy shared their research findings during a series of seminars in August 2013. From left to right: April Ferrino, Eileen Harrity, and MJ Kaplan.

iPanZ agM: Professor Paul spoonley presentationJoHn Larkindale was re-elected President at the IPANZ AGM held on 14 August 2013. Anthony Richards was re-elected Vice-President and Joan Smith elected Treasurer. See all the members of the Board at: www.ipanz.org.nz.

The IPANZ Annual Report 2012-13 is available at www.ipanz.org.nz or request a hard copy via email: [email protected] or phone 04 463 6940.

At the AGM, Professor Paul Spoonley gave an informative presentation on “The future face of New Zealand – how immigration has reshaped the country”.

Professor Spoonley says the challenge to the public sector is the need to understand the current and future diversity of New Zealand to be able to meet the needs of the population.

I P A N Z N E W S

2 Public Sector September/October 2013

Inst

itute

of P

ublic

Adm

inis

trat

ion

New

Zeal

and


Jeff Montgomery receives iPanZ service awardJeFF Montgomery recently received an IPANZ Service Award in recognition of his outstanding service to IPANZ as Chair of the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards from 2009 to 2013.

Former IPANZ Board member, Ross Tanner, says, “Jeff has done a superb job as Chair of the awards. The awards programme has become a feature of the state services calendar in New Zealand, and the awards dinner is an event not to be missed.”

The annual IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards recognise and reward outstanding performances and achievements in the New Zealand public sector, culminat-ing in the Prime Minister’s Award.

Montgomery joined the Awards Steering Group one year after the awards began. Under his leadership, the awards have improved year on year, particularly through his efforts in sourcing new partnership and sponsorship opportunities.

The awards now attract 80 entries from all parts of the public sector across eight categories.

Since April 2013, Montgomery has been the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages at the Department of Internal Affairs. Previously, he was a National Manager at the Ministry of Justice and at the former Department of Building and Housing.

the Public sector Conference – new thinking on the public services of new Zealand“Would you like chips with that?” could be the logical extension of providing super-efficient public services, with all services delivered by the private sector; Steve Maharey, Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, told the participants at the Public Sector Conference in Wellington on 6 September.

However, he went on to say that priva-tisation is clearly not the answer for the provision of all public services

and could raise issues, including loss of rights, markets not forming, and inequality.

Maharey said he was not advocating a return to the ‘bad old days’ of the public service. “When I joined the Valuation Department aged 15, my boss told me, ‘the first thing you need is a cardigan’ and he helped me go out and buy one! I lasted two weeks in my job.”

He said we have learnt some things from the quiet revolution of the 1980s and beyond. For example, “The original public principles were sound and the public sector doesn’t have to do everything.”

The public service of today, however, must meet expectations of service, deal with a politicised environment, and be responsive to different needs and communities.

Maharey said the state in the 21st century had a developmental role to get from where we are to somewhere else and decide what changes to be responsible for. And citizens had to give the public sector their democratic approval and engagement.

The public sector is distinct from the private sector, and staff require good induc-tion, stability and ongoing training to be effective. The sector must also be open to change and be responsive to the growing diversity in our society, Maharey said.

Steve Maharey was one of 12 key speakers at the two-day inaugural Public

Sector Conference which attracted about 100 people from the government, private, academic and not-for-profit sectors. A panel discussion and participants’ discussion groups invited consideration of a future public service, the so-called ‘i-phone state’. For many, the conference was a chance to step out of busy jobs, network with others, and consider the direction of the public service.

The conference was jointly organised by the PSA, IPANZ, Victoria University of Wellington School of Government, and the Labour History Project.

Jeff Montgomery (left) receiving his Service Award from IPANZ General Manager Lewis Rowland.


Two IPANZ speakers in August, cover-ing two very different subjects in very different ways, touched on what is

likely to become one of the really difficult issues of our time, namely how in the 21st century can the relevance of government be enhanced?

Martin Donnelly, the Permanent Secretary of the UK’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, speak-ing on 12 August, made the point that many British companies had no idea that government could help them make their businesses more successful, let alone know how to access such assistance. Professor Paul Spoonley, speaking at the IPANZ AGM on 14 August on demographic changes in New Zealand, noted that our rapidly growing immigrant population would, over time, want to find a voice in our political system, but how this might be achieved was far from clear.

Two seemingly opposing strands run through our society. On the one hand, there are many for whom government is remote, does not seem immediately relevant to their daily lives, and does not command much of their time and atten-tion. On the other, there are those who seek to effect change, using both tradi-tional and non-traditional (including social media) approaches to further their causes.

Both strands reflect the fact that governments seem not to be responsive to their needs. All governments claim

to consult with their constituents and communities, but are the ways in which this is carried out the best possible in today’s internet age? In particular, is the usual top-down approach whereby govern-ments identify an issue, put together a proposed response, and then seek wider input the only way to proceed?

In addition, there is the observed trend that in recent years voting turnout has been trending downwards. While local body elections have for a long time now seen relatively low turnouts, participa-tion in general elections is also dropping. Anecdotally, younger members of the community seem to be engaged politi-cally much less than previous generations. How much of this is a consequence that traditional communications mechanisms are not reaching them? How much is it a consequence of it no longer being widely understood that the underpinning of our form of democracy, namely representative government, is a social contract between electors and the elected in which both have responsibilities?

How should we deal with the “unknown unknowns” (to quote Donald Rumsfeld)? How might a small company come to understand that they don’t know there might be services available to them that could materially help their profitability? How might those new to engagement in our political processes – new migrants and young voters in particular – come to

realise that their views and their votes are important to determine how our society will work in years to come? How can all our citizens find a way to register their points of view and know that these views have been taken into account in decision-making processes? And how might govern-ments have confidence that they are consistently finding the best solutions to increasingly complex issues?

New technologies offer new ways in which governments and those governed can communicate. There are new possi-bilities for much richer dialogues than has been possible in the past. How these might contribute to a more engaged electorate has yet to be thought through. Governments need to learn how to listen more constructively, but they also need to hear from those other than single-issue enthusiasts and the vocal committed. The silent majority needs to be empowered with simple and easily accessible ways to have their views heard.

We need to have some wide-ranging conversations to work out what is going to be most effective in today’s world. If we fail, citizens will feel increasingly that governments do things to them, rather than acting as their agent doing things for them. In short, the consent environment that underpins our system may come under challenge. That is not an outcome that is in New Zealand’s interests.

subscribe to the Public sector journalThe Public Sector journal is a specialist publication for everyone with an interest in public administration, public management and policy-making.

The quarterly journal is independently written and edited with the oversight of a Journal Advisory Group. The journal covers topical issues, along with events and the people making news in the public sector.

Subscribe for $120 +gst ($138) annually for online, or $150 +gst ($172.50) for the print version as well.

Or become an individual member of IPANZ for $175 +gst ($201.25) and receive the Public Sector journal as one of your membership benefits.

Contact [email protected] or phone 04 463-6940 for more information.

PreSIdeNT’S meSSAGe

Government rules, right? by IPANZ President John larkindale


On 18 July, the State Sector Amendment Act 2013 came into force. As State Services Minister Dr Jonathan Coleman noted at the IPANZ-hosted launch of the legislation, “During the bill’s passage, I described the changes that the state sector is going through as being the biggest in a genera-tion. Not since the 1990s have we seen such ambitious plans for the state sector. The bill is a part of that process.”Editor SHELLy BISWELL spoke to State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie and government experts Associate Professor Bill Ryan and Associate Professor Richard Shaw to find out if the reforms will deliver the transformation expected, and what the legisla-tion means for the state sector and for New Zealand.

leadership across the system

Immediately following the passage of the State Sector Amendment Act, State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie

walked into the SSC’s weekly staff meeting and said, “as of this morn-ing I have a new job and so do each of you”.

Indeed, one of the most nota-ble changes in the reforms is the broadened role of the State Services Commissioner and the focus on system-wide leadership. The commissioner’s role has been clarified in a new section (4A) to the Act. The section states the commissioner will provide lead-ership and oversight of the state services in a number of ways, including promoting collaboration, identifying and developing high-calibre leaders, advising on design and capability of the state services,

and evaluating the performance of public service leaders.

Another change is that the State Services Commissioner may now recommend to the minister that a chief executive of a department or departmental agency be trans-ferred into a vacant spot in another department. The added authority comes with a number of controls, however, including obtaining the chief executive’s agreement to the transfer and consulting with appropriate ministers.

“The reforms formalise some-thing we have been working towards over the past several years and that is that the state sector needs to operate as a unified system to deliver great results,” says Rennie.

“There’s a change in paradigm implied in that shift,” he adds, “to work the system as a system we need to ensure accountability and responsibility are assigned appro-priately.” In other words, looking beyond what an agency’s successes are and instead considering how an agency’s work fits into achieving overall results.

Rennie says the Better Public Services results – reducing long-term welfare dependence, support-ing vulnerable children, boosting skills and employment, reducing crime, and improving interaction with government – all exemplify issues that need the resources and attention of more than one agency.

Associate Professor Bill Ryan, Victoria University of Wellington School of Government, agrees but says the BPS Advisory Group called for a “step change” in how state services are run, something he would have expected to see in the BPS programme and the reforms.

“The legislation falls far short of that,” he says. “It’s not clear to me that the enormous programme of change management required within each organisation led by each chief executive and across the whole sector led by the commis-sioner is yet fully grasped or understood.”

Rennie says, “The BPS results have highlighted the need to do things differently. They have also shown where barriers exist. The

reforms address many of the legis-lative impediments, but organisa-tional and cultural ones – particu-larly around leadership – remain and will require a concerted commitment to change.”

Many of these changes are being initiated by the SSC, through building a new leadership culture (see page 20), to calibrat-ing the performance improve-ment framework so it’s focused on results, to being better coordinated when it comes to purchasing and resourcing.

“Most importantly, it’s about focusing on results and putting people – the people we serve and state servants – at the centre of everything we do as a sector,” Rennie says.

It’s a tall order. With the commissioner taking on not only more responsibilities through the legislation, but also through the

state sector reforms– the fine print

Iain Rennie, State Services Commissioner

>© M

adra

both

air |

Dre

amst

ime.

com


culture shift to a more unified sector, there’s also a need to build capacity and capabilities within the SSC. The reforms clarify the statutory positions of State Services Commissioner and Deputy State Services Commissioner, a change that State Services Commissioner is already capitalising on. Former Department of Conservation Chief Executive Al Morrison stepped into a deputy commis-sioner role in September and Rennie says he expects to appoint additional deputy commissioners in the near future.

“The SSC’s role is not about command-and-control leadership, it’s about building capabilities and supporting best practice within the state sector. Deputy commis-sioners will be tasked with specific work programmes to ensure we are successful in transforming the sector,” Rennie says.

Bill Ryan says there remains too much focus on chief executives, both in the legislative reforms and in the SSC’s leadership work.

“There really is a ‘cargo cult’ when it comes to chief execu-tives in our country and I don’t see signs that we are addressing that. Yes, it’s nice to see talk of a graduate programme and the ‘Top 200’ has merit, but our focus is still on the individual instead of a more distributed team leader-ship approach that sees tier two, tier three, and staff taking more ownership of programmes and their outcomes.”

He says we also need to change our definition of leadership. “Great leadership is not about an individual, it’s about the right mix of people who bring vision, knowledge, experience, encourage-ment, innovation, and an interest in sustainability and succession.”

Ryan says recent research in which he has been involved suggests organisations that have

adopted a broader notion of lead-ership are more “ambidextrous” and somewhat counter-intuitively are often good at both the busi-ness as usual and innovation. Conversely, organisations with a more traditional top-down approach seem to struggle with both.

“There are some really good examples of excellent leadership in the state sector, for example, some district health boards have strong leadership models in place, but they are still the exception.

“The reforms provide an oppor-tunity to create practices and cultures that support more effec-tive leadership, but the results so far are patchy. Legislation sets the terms of the overall model. What this set of reforms has given us is tweaking of the current model, not the framework for the trans-formation that’s required if we’re really going to best serve New Zealanders.”

Massey University Associate Professor Richard Shaw says, “Particularly in New Zealand, ‘reform’ is quite a freighted word, often associated with a break from the past or a quantum leap, but this set of reforms should actually be viewed more as the latest itera-tion of the previous reforms.”

But Iain Rennie says, “A good legislative framework is obviously important, but this transforma-tion, unlike the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, needs to be led through a change in culture and some of that can’t be legislated.”

While there are differing opin-ions on how the reforms deliver on building leadership capabilities, it’s clearly at the top of the agenda for the SSC and the Government, as Minister Coleman said at the end of his speech at the launch of the legislation, “The challenge I lay down for you today is what are you going to do to ensure we see a more unified, effective and skilled state sector in less than five years? What kind of leadership do you need and what do you have to deliver to make this happen?”

Ryan says the state sector needs to be “brave” and not look for permission when it comes to doing the right thing. “The reforms are not the end-all to getting it right in the state sector, particularly in strengthening leadership. Real change will not be delivered from the top down. Instead, agencies that are results focused will continue to start with client or programme outcomes and work back from there.”

eye on the horizonThe BPS Advisory Group and the Performance Improvement Framework reviews have both found the state sector to be adept at responding to the government of the day and immediate issues (for example, responding to the Canterbury earthquakes). But as the PIF Lead Reviewers noted in their report Getting to Great, “they [public institutions] tend to be less successful in building strong and enduring public institutions whose purpose and roles are clear and whose core business effective-ness and efficiency are as strong as their ability to manage issues and events”.

To address this, the legislative reforms emphasise stewardship, including section 4A(i) stat-ing that one of the State Services Commissioner’s responsibilities includes “promoting a culture of stewardship in the State services”

Bill Ryan, Associate Professor, Victoria University of Wellington School of Government


and the responsibilities of chief executives being extended to consider the work of government today and tomorrow.

Iain Rennie says, “In addition to the work of today, the state sector needs to have a clear eye on the future, including our ability to advise future governments. We need to be building skills, capacity, and a depth of leadership within our organisations, along with taking care of our assets and oper-ating sustainably.”

In a speech delivered to Chapman Tripp in April 2013, Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf cut to the chase on the issue and said, “All state sector lead-ers have a responsibility to look after the Crown’s medium- and long-term interests. We don’t go

to work to tell our ministers only what they want to hear, save our face, cover our backside and get through each day as it comes. As the effective owners of our own state sector system, the onus is on us all to make sure it is sustainable well into the future.”

Bill Ryan says stewardship is a difficult one to legislate, but he is encouraged the concept receives a clear mention in the reforms. “Stewardship could be an impor-tant step forward, but everything depends on how senior managers enact it and make it meaningful.”

He does have reservations,

however, “How many agencies will really push back on ministers? In an era of cutbacks what will be the first thing to go? I’m not one who believes we should always be throw-ing more funding or resources at problems. Much of what is required comes down to practices and cultures. That said, we have cut back many agencies to the point of them being perilously under-resourced and unable to carry out their core functions. It’s hard to plan for the future when you barely have the resources necessary to get through today.”

Legislative changesin 2013 the State Sector, Public Finance, and Crown Entities Acts were amended to provide a broader range of tools to be used by the State Sector.Some amendments are already in effect, while others will come into force for the 2014/15 financial year.

State Sector Amendment Act 2013Changes have been introduced to give greater direction and system leadership from the State Services Commission, and encour-age increased working across departmental boundaries for collective impact. Specifically, the amendments: • clarify the statutory positions of State

Services Commissioner and Deputy State Services Commissioner

• give clearer responsibilities to the State Services Commissioner for developing senior leadership and management capa-bility and the authority to issue codes of conduct

• clarify the responsibilities of chief executives, including most employer responsibilities

• allow for the creation of a departmental agency to be set up within a department to carry out a specific function.

Public finance Amendment Act 2013Changes have been made to allow greater financial flexibility and for resources to be shared between departments. Changes include:• the financial responsibilities of chief

executives • the introduction of financial flexibility tools

(multi-category appropriations (MCAs)) to clarify that one department can use an appropriation administered by another department.

Starting in 2014/15, changes will come into effect on reporting in accountability docu-ments and statements of intent can be extended to cover three years.

crown entities Amendment Act 2013Changes include an increased focus for Crown entities to use a whole-of-govern-ment approach and strengthen functional leadership.

Starting in 2014/15, changes will come into effect on reporting in accountability documents and statements of intent can be extended to cover three years.

“Great leadership is not about an individual, it’s about the right mix of people who bring vision, knowledge, experience, encouragement, innovation, and an interest in sustainability and succession.”

>


diagnosis is overexcerpT from State Services commissioner Iain rennie’s speech at the IPANZ-hosted launch of the state sector reforms.

…The diagnosis and debate is now over – we are into the hard graft of implementation and change.

One of the important challenges that I put to everyone in this room today is this is not change that can be delivered from Number

Two, The Terrace, or indeed from any chief executive’s office in any agency.

This is change that has to happen at a number of levels. It’s about change that’s centrally led in collaboration with the system. It’s about partnering opportunities with indi-vidual sectors, groups and unions. It’s about a set of permissions for people to do things in different ways…

© M

adra

both

air |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

Richard Shaw says the tension can be, at least in part, traced back to our preoccupation with empha-sising efficiencies over effective-ness – a leftover of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. “As visiting Brookings Institution Professor Allen Schick wrote in his conclu-sion of The Spirit of Reform in 1996, ‘They [the next reforms] will have to do for outcomes what has been accomplished for outputs.’

“We know that through research, and the government has done some work around this issue, but I don’t think the reforms take us there,” says Shaw.

building in accountabilityThe reforms introduce changes to reporting in accountability docu-ments. For example, starting in the 2014/15 financial year, new report-ing requirements come into effect to make reporting more meaning-ful and transparent. At the same time, statements of intent will only be required every three years. In addition, section 57 discusses the authority of the commissioner to introduce codes of conduct.

Richard Shaw notes that, partic-ularly with regard to the conduct of ministerial advisors, New Zealand has fewer accountability arrange-ments than many countries and he had hoped the reforms would have been more unequivocal about codes of conduct. “The amendments are somewhat ambiguous in this area.

While a code of conduct is only one tool, it can be used to make explicit what the expectations are of the state sector and draw attention to best practice.”

Specifically, Dr Chris Eichbaum, Acting Head of School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, and Shaw put in a submission on the legislation asking the select committee to consider clarification on the code of conduct for ministerial advisors, noting while ministerial advisors are employees of the Department of Internal Affairs and, as such, are subject to the Standards of Integrity and Conduct, they sometimes carry out duties “incompatible with the political neutrality standards of the code”.

The 2005 amendments to the State Sector Act, which intro-duced the code of conduct for the state sector, did not include an exemption for ministerial advisors. As Eichbaum and Shaw note in their submission, “Addressing this irregularity will help to increase the confidence that the public has in the political neutrality of State servants”.

Shaw says while it’s a small part of the legislation, it’s an area with big implications. “New Zealand has had much less contention in this area than many other countries, but that appears to be more thanks to goodwill and a muddling through than because good processes are in place.”

He says the role of ministe-rial advisors does not appear to be problematic to the Westminster system in a New Zealand context. In fact, he and Eichbaum’s consid-erable research in this area suggests ministerial advisors can work well in principle and practice, but there is the need for a more “nuanced concept of politicisation and the administrative interactions between political appointees and perma-nent public servants in the policy process”.

Shaw adds, “Codes of conduct are not a panacea, but they do clar-ify the rules of engagement. And while the amendments are not as clear as I think they should be, they have at least left the door open for the commissioner to further define conduct.”

Transforming the public sectorCompared to previous state sector reforms, there would probably be very few who would argue the legislative reforms on their own are transforming, but Iain Rennie says the reforms have provided a clear mandate for change.

“The legislative reforms take us part way there, but now it’s up to all of us to create a system that can adapt and change quickly to the needs and demands of today, as well as be relevant and fit for purpose in 5, 10, and 20 years’ time.”


state sector reforms – iPanZ’s viewsAs an independent organisa-tion committed to promoting improvements in public policy and in administration and management, IPANZ sub-mitted on the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. IPANZ Communications Advisor MARGARET MCLACHLAN writes about some of the key points from the submission.

IPANZ President John Larkindale says the quality

of public administration in New Zealand has long been held in high regard internationally.

“As we stated in our submission, we believe our state sector legislation is sufficient for New Zealand to maintain high standards of public administration and much of the bill’s stated aims could be achieved through the full application of existing legislation.

“The provisions of the Act will not be sufficient to achieve the stated intent without stronger leadership from the government of the day and from central agencies. Improvements

in public sector management are possible, however, and welcome in the areas of collaboration, leadership and practice,” he says.

IPANZ supports the existing ‘principles-based’ approach to state sector legislation. Two core principles stemming from the founding 1912 State Sector Act that have not endured may be remedied with this new Act. These are a unified public service and a career public service. The devolution of employment and other authority to each agency reduced opportunities for preserving the career public service. The new Act enables a return to some elements of “unity” and “career” while retaining the broad principles of the 1988 State Sector Act.

IPANZ welcomes the greater emphasis on stewardship reflected in the new Act. As the IPANZ submission noted, chief executives need to pay more attention to developing and maintaining long-term capability in their departments than they currently appear to do. This

will require a greater emphasis to be put on upgrading professionalism across the public sector. Successful stewardship requires good management and a sound knowledge not only of the sector in which a given department operates but also relevant cross-sectoral issues.

The new Act significantly strengthens requirements of public sector leaders to manage, explicitly, for the sustainability and future well-being of their agencies. There will, inevitably, be ongoing tensions between the achievement of short-term objectives mandated by the government of the day and the need to maintain the long-term sustainability of individual agencies. It will be a challenge to find the right balance; chief executives must provide successive governments with free and frank advice concerning any conflict between short-term priorities and longer-term stewardship objectives. IPANZ supports this aspect of the Act as it provides greater

clarity and certainty in this area for chief executives, ministers, Parliament, and the public.

Larkindale says, “As we noted in our submission, the ability of departments to work together towards common goals is possible now, and occurs now. Much more could be achieved here, with more leadership and direction. The gap in the leadership community also reflects the fact that capacity to provide leadership and expertise in operational activities has not been a requirement of appointment as head of the central agencies, yet this is perhaps where some of the greatest potential for public sector performance improvement lies.”

IPANZ submits that the effective use of key positions, coupled with an active and longer-term leadership management strategy, could lead to significant progress in joining government up.

IPANZ’s full submission can be viewed in the knowledge hub on www.ipanz.org.nz.


Collaboration and joined-up services are business as usual at the Auckland Policy Office. Editor SHELLy BISWELL talks to APO Executive Director Louise Marra about national policies in an urban context, working with the Auckland Council, and the value of supporting an internationally competitive city.

Since 2005, central govern-ment has had a presence in Auckland, first as the Government Urban and

Economic Development Office (GUEDO) and, more recently, as the Auckland Policy Office.

APO Executive Director Louise Marra says the name change reflects the office’s broader role in policy development. “Originally, our work was very Auckland focused, but over time it became apparent that we have expertise in urban issues that is relevant across other cities and regions.

“For example, the APO is involved in the New Zealand Core Cities project which was initi-ated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Local Government New Zealand in 2011. The project involves working with New Zealand’s six largest cities to build a shared understanding of the economic contribution of New Zealand’s largest cities,” she says.

Marra says the mix of Auckland

and national policy develop-ment helps to ensure that the APO’s work is aligned with other work being carried out by central government. “Our role is varied in the office. It is a mix of Auckland-specific policies, national policies that affect Auckland, provid-ing an Auckland perspective into national policy, and helping get alignment between national and regional policy or more increas-ingly national urban policies that build off the knowledge of Auckland.”

Marra points to some of the OECD’s work in building resilient regions for stronger economies (OECD Regional Outlook 2011)

that looks at moving away from economy-wide policies that can be “spatially blind” and moving towards policy and governance that can “generate new sources of growth, while enhancing social inclusion and environmental sustainability”.

In its Regional Outlook, the OECD notes that traditional policy development is often

based on trade-offs, for exam-ple, economic development at the expense of environmental sustainability. There is a grow-ing awareness, however, for the need to develop policies that are complementary and support economic, social, and environ-mental objectives.

“We are seeing that shift here in New Zealand, particu-larly in policy development for Christchurch and Auckland,” Marra says.

While the APO’s work has broadened, building a good work-ing relationship with Auckland Council is paramount. “Auckland Council’s Chief Planning Officer

Dr Roger Blakely and I co-chair a regional forum which has been an incredibly constructive way of getting central government and local government in the same room to discuss issues ranging from the unitary plan, to trans-port, to the economy.”

Marra says the Auckland Council is a key stakeholder. “We have been able to develop a robust

relationship with the council at the officials’ level, which is critical if we are going to work on some of the challenges that Auckland faces.”

As the Executive Director of the APO, Marra reports to MBIE Deputy Chief Executive Paul Stocks, but she also serves as the Secretariat of the Urban Chief Executives Group. The UCE meets two to three times each year to coordinate a collaborative approach for central government on Auckland-related issues.

“The UCE provides direction and helps to ensure that central government speaks with one voice. To do that requires strong and informed leadership at the CE level and ongoing discussions and coordination between agencies.”

When it comes to the govern-ment’s Better Public Services and Business Growth Agenda programmes, for example, the UCE recognises the important role Auckland plays in achieving results. “Just in terms of numbers,

“As an outward-facing city, sometimes we need to have different conversations or look for different solutions than the rest of the country. Our job at the APO is to ensure policy development is also seen through the national lens – to develop policies that are good for Auckland and good for New Zealand as a whole.”

Louise Marra, Auckland Policy Office Executive Director

outward facing– the Auckland Policy Office


Auckland is crucial, but it’s also a very complex city with unique pressures,” Marra says. “The UCE provides overall direction and the APO provides support in developing and shaping policies that are aligned with the government’s objectives and suitable for Auckland.”

The APO also understands the need for Auckland to remain internationally competitive. As Prime Minister John Key said in his speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce earlier this year, “In a country that is totally dependent on international links to succeed, Auckland is our premier show window.”

Marra says, “As an outward-facing city, sometimes we need to have different conversations or look for different solutions than the rest of the country. Our job at the APO is to ensure policy development is also seen through the national lens – to develop policies that are good for Auckland and good for New Zealand as a whole.”

Central government agencies within the Auckland Policy Office include:• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment• Ministry for the Environment• Ministry of Transport• Ministry for Culture and Heritage• Environmental Protection Authority• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet• The Treasury• State Services Commission

“The central agencies are support partners that mainly hot-desk within the office so their staff can attend meetings in Auckland and work here as required. Part of our stated role is that the office is a hub for Wellington which means we have agencies like the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that frequently hot-desk here. Other agencies like MCH, MBIE, MoT and MfE have a number of staff here involved in major policy development,” APO Director Louise Marra says.

© N

igel

Spi

ers

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m


Good research and community ownership have been key to the success of anti-family violence campaign ‘It’s OK to Help’. KATHy OMBLER talks with some of the people behind the campaign which was the winner of the Prime Minister’s Award in the 2013 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards.

Trish Green, Ministry of Social Development Team Manager – Social Campaigns, likens the ‘It’s OK to Help’ campaign to gardening.

“We did the groundwork really well. There was good research informing the campaign, an excellent creative team working together to develop strategies, we had good funding, we put a lot of time and care into our resources, and we have listened to communities.

“It’s a bit like gardening, if you do your groundwork properly, over time you start to see the results. This is about community mobi-lisation right across New Zealand for social change.”

The ‘It’s OK to Help’ social campaign follows on from the high-profile ‘It’s not OK’ campaign which generated nationwide action against family violence and which took the IPANZ supreme award in 2010.

Identifying the problemFamily violence is a significant social problem in New Zealand, accounting for over half of our homicides and violent crimes.

“Every day, MSD works to strengthen fami-lies. Helping communities realise that family violence is not OK and that they have the power to help is an integral part of that.” says MSD Chief Executive Brendan Boyle.

Research following the initial campaign produced overwhelming feedback that people wanted to help but didn’t know how, says Trish Green. “Only 10 to 20 per cent of people seek formal help in family violence situations. There was a clear need to provide practical help to families and whānau, friends, neighbours and workmates, those who people turn to first when seeking help.”

Thus phase three of the campaign was born, with a ‘How to Help’ message reinforced across

all aspects of ‘It’s not OK’. The new campaign included television advertising with the message: the sooner you reach out to someone living with family violence, the sooner they can get the help they need. This was reinforced through the campaign website, with videos of former victims and helpers, plus media advocacy and media training for community spokespeople working in the field of family violence prevention. Also in the mix were the campaign’s Facebook page, local community workshops, and new resources with simple, clear messages about how people can help.

The messages got through. Campaign research shows the potential to help has been unleashed in communities throughout New Zealand. Of 677 people interviewed, 307 said they had taken steps or action around family violence in their own home, family or community. Nearly 80 per cent of them indicated their action had resulted in positive change.

The campaign has been successful because it focuses on results, says Brendan Boyle. “Reducing family violence is our long-term

On message: It’s OK tO Help


goal, but there’s a clear set of steps to achieve along the way. That is, reducing tolerance of family violence, building communities that promote safe families and support behaviour change, and mobilising people who are confi-dent to take action to seek and offer help.

“It’s about making it OK for New Zealanders to speak up and to seek help for themselves and others. It’s about supporting communities to find their own way to take a stand against family violence and to provide safe environments for children and families.”

Planning for successTrish Green says the positive outcomes have been the result of a carefully planned, multi-faceted, cross-agency campaign.

“Research and evaluation were key. Our research included an audit of media coverage of violence stories in New Zealand. We researched what good help looks like and what bad help looks like. So from that we had really good, expert knowledge combined with grassroots, community feedback and the credibility to be able to go into a community and say, ‘what works for you?’ – because what you need to do on the West Coast might be different from what you need to do in Gisborne,” she says.

Local ownership and leadership were critical, she adds. “The campaign isn’t owned by us, it’s owned by the communi-

ties of New Zealand, everyone has a stake. Involvement of local champions, rather than national celebrities, was part of that. People love to see their own put their hands up, it builds community ownership and that is really powerful.”

In Paeroa, for example, the Hauraki Family Violence Intervention Network (HFVIN) engaged 28 volunteer champions, including local sports personalities, councillors, student leaders and police, who became the public face of the ‘Family Violence is Not OK!’ message in the district. The champions featured on billboards, posters, radio and print media and fronted at campaign events. Several were personally approached to support people expe-riencing family violence, and were able to refer them to appropriate agencies because of train-ing they had received from the MSD campaign team.

Green says the campaign was also given a head start by the solid groundwork under-taken for ‘It’s not OK’. “We had an excellent creative team, working with advertising agency DRAFTFCB and Senate Communications to develop strategies.”

Starting the conversationAlso making a point of difference was how ‘It’s not OK’, then ‘It’s OK to Talk’ quickly became part of the vernacular. “We spoke with people in the UK doing similar things and what they didn’t have was that signature ‘It’s OK’ that gave people permission to talk. That was really important, one of the critical things was to start a conversation, get people to open up and start talking. It’s a very difficult thing to do.

“That early campaign also named the behaviours. The research showed other than men’s physical violence towards their partners, New Zealanders have little understanding of the extent of family violence issues. They didn’t understand about dating violence, psychologi-cal abuse, elder abuse – and that it happens across all sectors of society,” says Green.

“I think working across different govern-ment agencies has become positive and more effective. We worked with Ministry of Defence, NZ Police, Ministry of Health, and Department of Corrections and that’s highly valuable because it increases the network of people who have the ability to help.

“It’s about making it OK for New Zealanders to speak up and to seek help for themselves and others. It’s about supporting communities to find their own way to take a stand against family violence and to provide safe environments for children and families.”

The Ministry of Social Development’s ‘It’s OK to Help’ campaign received the Prime Minister’s Award during the 2013 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards. Accepting the award (from left to right): Paula Strickson – Manager, Collaborative Initiatives (Family and Community Services); Murray Edridge – Deputy Chief Executive, Family and Community Services; Trish Green – Team Manager, Social Campaigns and It’s not OK (Family and Community Services); Brendan Boyle – Chief Executive; and Robyn Rusher – General Manager, Operations (Family and Community Services).

>


Canterbury stands up to family violencecHAllenging times in post-earthquake Canterbury have brought together a diver-sity of agencies and individuals to address family violence issues. The resulting campaign, ‘Canterbury Can – Stand up Against Family Violence’, was launched in August under the umbrella of the nationwide ‘It’s OK to Help’.

“Everyone has been aware of how the earthquakes have damaged our commu-nity – raising anxiety levels and impacting on living conditions and jobs,” says Police Sergeant Jim Sole, Chair of the Canterbury Family Violence Strategy collaborative.

“The typical pattern, when a community has survived a major disaster, is to experience a significant increase in family violence. Statistics show that Canterbury police investigated an average 19 incidents involving family violence daily, from January 2012 to January 2013.

“Part of our early discussions were about letting the dust settle and finding the energy to commit to an important challenge, over and above our normal roles. We focused on what would give the greatest impact for the energy and finances we had available. We wanted a positive message to help support the community to address family violence.”

Canterbury Can aims to educate the community about the many different types of family violence, which can include hitting, name calling, rape, intimidation and financial bullying, adds Eve Lafferty, Service Manager, Barnardos.

Local champions fronting the new campaign include Canterbury iwi leaders and sports and television personalities. More than 2000 posters have been distributed city-wide, complementing billboards and advertising on buses.

“We have just launched the campaign, which makes it difficult to measure the success,” says Sole.

“We will monitor calls to the ‘It’s Not OK’ helpline, to Police and other agen-cies to see if they increase. The aim is for people to feel supported to seek help for themselves or others impacted by family violence and to show that Canterbury can stand-up to family violence.”

“Also we have been fortunate to have [the support of ] former perpetrators who have been violence-free for years now. Vic Tamati, for example, his story is inspirational, it can be told at a business group, or in a prison – it’s a powerful presentation because it’s real. We know perpetrators will listen to former perpetrators.

“We put a lot of time and care into our resources. They are plain English, simple, straightforward messages that can be read by anyone. The challenge was to take all the academic findings and research from commu-nity feedback and condense those into some-thing meaningful and accessible to everyone,” says Green.

“We have a really good website and being flexible was important as was embracing social media. Our Facebook page is pitched in a posi-tive tone and we have a strong following on Twitter.”

meeting the challengeSuccess did not come without its challenges, says Green, for example moving to stage three when in some communities there was still a need for stage one.

“Different places were at different stages of readiness so we had to mesh ‘It’s not OK’ with information about where they could go for help. We developed a small, discreet book-let with basic, plain language and we are still putting out thousands, listing local commu-nity numbers, and providing some in different languages.

“Also, as our team is quite small, we devel-oped a workshop we could take to communi-ties and train people who could then take the same workshop to others and help to spread the message. That’s proven successful, every month more people are being trained.”

The training and support from the MSD Campaign team was incredible says Rachel Harrison, HFVIN Coordinator. “They were enablers for our campaign, practically with resources and training, also through their mentoring and support of the working party. They have a great way of helping communi-ties to take ownership of the issue so that the grassroots change is long-lasting and effective,” she adds.

Success breeds success, it seems. Green says the biggest single challenge now is demand. “There is a recognition we get things done so more people want to work with us.


“Every single day there is a request for new work to be done, for example, with the abuse of disabled people. We have also been work-ing with New Zealand Rugby League, focusing on sideline behaviour and the culture of rugby league clubs. We work with the Police and the Sophie Elliot Foundation in schools with a programme addressing dating relationships. Faith Against Violence has brought together 40 different religions, Rural Women have come to us. It’s never ending, there is still so much work to do.

“The biggest challenge is sustainability, because social change takes a long time. It’s very complex; we are often dealing with inter-gener-ational violence with people who have never known anything but violence in their home.”

Undaunted, Green says working in a positive frame has been key to the campaign’s success. “This campaign gives the hope of a better life. We have been fortunate that MSD has

supported us, our work is quite different from services and programmes, it’s social change which involves working in a really different way.”

Evaluation has been critical, she adds. “Measuring is really important, so we can demonstrate change over time, so we know what’s working and what isn’t.”

For all the challenges there are constant highlights, says Green. “Every week someone in the office will say, ‘hey, look at this feed-back’. Or we get a phone call about something good that happened because of the work we are involved in. Six years on, that feedback is still celebrated in the office as much as on the very first day.”

‘It’s OK to Help’ was the winner of the SweeneyVesty Award for Excellence in Public Sector Communications and the Prime Minister’s Award in the 2013 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards.

About the sponsorSweeneyVesty is an independently owned New Zealand-based communi-cations consultancy providing advice and services to corporations and public sector organisations in New Zealand and globally. With over 25 years’ experience, we know that communicating effectively and managing reputational risks are key elements of organisational success. By sponsoring the award for Excellence in Public Sector Communications, we recog-nise the hard work and professionalism of public sector communicators. We were delighted to see the category winner go on to win the Prime Minister’s Award for Public Sector Excellence, a testament to the importance of communications for achieving organisational objectives and policy goals.

in Budget 2013, the Government introduced a number of initiatives to strengthen education and vocational training. One of these is the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative. This initiative aims to support Māori and Pasifika learners, aged 18 to 34 years, in completing trades’ qualifications and transitioning into apprenticeships.

The initiative is led by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Tertiary Education Commission with support from the Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education.

The initiative links to the government’s Better Public Services programme, particularly priority result 6: increasing the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds with advanced trade qualifications at level 4 or above. The State Services Commission notes on its website that people with qualifications tend to have better economic outcomes than those with low qualifications. The initiative also links to the Business Growth Agenda Safe and Skilled Workplaces worksteam.

A key element of the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative is build-

ing partnerships between Māori and Pasifika groups, employers or industry groups, and tertiary education organisa-tions to support participating learners.

“The initiative will offer communities and employers the chance to be actively involved in matching community needs with skills development and employment opportunities,” MBIE Principal Advisor Felicity Bollen says.

The initiative builds on two pilot programmes – He Toki ki te Rika and the Pasifika Trades Training Initiative – that were introduced in 2011.

“Early indications from both programmes suggest that having commu-nity groups and employers involved can improve completion rates and employ-ment or apprenticeship outcomes for Māori and Pasifika students,” TEC Chief Advisor Murray Johnson says.

He Toki ki te Rika is an iwi-led collabo-ration between Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT), Te Tapuae o Rehua, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Hawkins Construction, with support from other industry organisations, TPK, MSD, and the TEC. Initiated in 2011, the programme includes courses on carpen-try, welding, plumbing, painting and more.

In 2012/13 nearly 100 He Toki ki te Rika students moved into full-time employment in the building trades, with another 87 enrolling for further training. There were 141 new enrolments in the first half of 2013.

www.mbie.govt.nz

Māori and Pasifika Trades Training He Toki ki te Rika students take part in a community project at Rehua Marae, 2013.

Phot

o: H

e To

ki k

i te

Rika


Of the Government’s 10 results identified in its Better Public Services programme, only results 9 and 10 focus on improving in-teraction with government in the digital era, although many would argue that all 10 will depend on getting the technology right. While the BPS results are an important place to start, the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan makes it clear that the goal is to com-pletely transform government ICT. Editor SHELLy BISWELL reports.

We live in the digital age, but 2012 may be the year we look back on as when ICT came of age in the public sector. That’s partly because in 2012, as part of its Better Public Services

programme, the Government gave Department of Internal Affairs Chief Executive and Government Chief Information Officer Colin MacDonald the mandate to integrate the ICT plans of all public agencies, to recom-mend collaboration and consolidation where appropriate, and to direct government departments to adopt all-of-government initiatives. While there had been good work on a more integrated approach in the past, the mandate clarified roles and the Government’s expectations.

To give effect to this mandate, in June 2013 the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017 was published. As GCIO Colin MacDonald writes in his introduction to the strategy, “The secret of a good strategy is in how well it continues to achieve its goals in an environ-ment where the only certainty is that things will change”.

collaborative inputTim Occleshaw, DIA Deputy Chief Executive Service and System Transformation, says collaboration was key to the development of the Strategy and Action Plan. “The strategy was almost a year in develop-ment with guidance from the ICT Strategy Group which is comprised of

@

chief executives and directors from seven public agencies, the ICT Ministerial Committee, along with a strategy taskforce which included a number of agency chief infor-mation officers and other special-ists. We also engaged with over 60 organisations and held a number of workshops throughout the process.”

Using the government’s defi-nition of ICT as information management, technology infra-structure, and technology-enabled business processes and services, the strategy set out to rectify some of the “persisting issues in government ICT and its operating model”,

including some agency projects having complexities leading to high project risk and some failures, agencies often choosing bespoke solutions instead of re-using avail-able systems or ‘off the shelf ’ solutions, and some duplication and lack of coordination across government.

As Colin MacDonald noted in launching the strategy, “The Canterbury earthquakes, global financial crisis and changing expectations of how people want to access services all mean the Government expects the state sector to lift performance further and to be innovative in addressing

Better Public servicesResult 9: New Zealand businesses have a one-stop online shop for all government advice and support they need to run and grow their business

Result 10: New Zealanders can complete their transactions with government easily in a digital environment

© R

a2st

udio

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m

Better Public services – spotlight on government iCt


such challenges. The Strategy and Action Plan builds on the direc-tions and priorities for govern-ment ICT, addresses persistent issues, and reflects the additional imperatives of the Better Public Services programme.”

The result is a strategy with clearly articulated guiding prin-ciples and a four-year action plan with over 100 initiatives. The actions range from develop-ing an ICT operating model that reorganises capability, to increas-ing GCIO engagement with agencies and the ICT industry to strengthen collaboration and system delivery, to developing a virtual leadership academy. It also keeps in place individual agency responsibility and accountability, but clarifies the central coordina-tion role of the DIA.

Occleshaw says, “We’re look-ing to build system-wide capabil-ity while still allowing agencies to make decisions that are right for their organisations and the people they serve.

“Each of the actions corre-sponds to one of the four focus areas in the strategy. So, for example, one of the areas is that services are digital by default. Our goal is that by 2017, 70 per cent of the most common trans-actions are done online. It’s an ambitious, but also attainable, goal as we have seen in the past year. In March 2013, the uptake of digital transactional services had moved to 41 per cent, from 29.9 per cent in June 2012. By completing the projects identified in the action plan we should be able to meet our target,” he adds.

IcT in a complex worldPart of coming of age usually involves some growing pains. In the case of government ICT projects, some of those persist-ing issues were well aired in 2012 with several public sector ICT-related projects ending up as the top story for New Zealand media. As Dr Miriam Lips, Chair in e-Government at Victoria University of Wellington tweeted in June of this year, however, “Novopay is a good illustration of [the] high complexity of govern-ment IT and the need to recog-nise the public management, rather than IT, issues.”

In less than 140 characters, Lips gets to the crux of the issue – ICT is a tool – it’s how effec-tively government can use that tool that makes all the difference.

As Rose O’Neill, who holds a

PhD in e-government and is now a senior consultant for Maven, says, “The New Zealand public service has spent a lot of time and money quite rightly organis-ing and re-organising informa-tion processes and systems over the past 10 to 15 years. This has increased efficiencies and created significant benefits for the New Zealand public,” she says.

“We do not give enough credit to the successes we have had and the value of those to the New Zealand public. Every time there is a failure, like Novopay, we dine out on it because it makes good copy. However, the real benefits to New Zealand in the future will be found in the development of the communica-tion side of technologies. In my view, the benefit of communica-tion technologies is that they can >


be used to create the types of effi-ciencies that we have reaped from the information technologies, but they also will enable us to reduce our resource and labour costs and increase the number of resources from all around the world that we can bring to bear on solving any given policy problem – take climate change for example – or developing new knowledge and expertise.”

building in system assuranceTim Occleshaw, who prior to coming to the DIA had held a number of business and IT management roles including head-ing IT for ANZ New Zealand, says the strategy has been developed to transform government ICT and includes building in more system assurance. “One of our focus areas in the strategy – in fact, the one that underpins the other four focus

areas – is system assurance.” He adds, “System assurance

isn’t about adding another layer or as one senior official said to me ‘another car in the driveway’, it’s about incorporating robust evaluation into everything we do, from investment decision-making, to development, to opera-tions, to maintenance. Beyond that, in his functional leadership role, the GCIO now provides the central point of coordination and reporting.”

In her recent keynote presen-tation at the Digital Technology Conferenz in August, Miriam Lips noted that under the Government’s strategy, by 2017 all new transac-tional government services will be established following a digital-by-default approach.

“Not only will this lead to a strong increase in the volume of digital data that needs to be

managed by government agencies, but at the same time also to new privacy and security challenges as a result of the collection, processing, storage, and use of those digital data sets,” she said.

Occleshaw says that’s where the system assurance has such an important role to play. “System assurance is not another audit. Good assurance allows stakehold-ers to make decisions, and also provides a safety net. To be success-ful, assurance needs to be a priority – a way of operating – across the whole public sector.”

To that end, the DIA is estab-lishing an assurance team that can provide good, independent advice on ICT projects and help agen-cies better manage risks, but also leverage off the government’s many other ICT projects.

Occleshaw says another aspect of the work is about changing

the leadership culture. “We need to think holistically, with change being delivered collaboratively and clear accountabilities that connect at a system level. That doesn’t mean we expect chief executives to become ICT experts, but it does mean we’re going to arm them with a better set of questions to ask about ICT projects and provide them with advice as required.”

It’s a big shift for many in government – a transforma-tion – where agencies will need to consider the wider collective inter-est of government in their planning and decision-making.

But as MacDonald points out, “It is essential for the success of Better Public Services that govern-ment agencies are required to look not only at their own priorities, but also at priorities across the public sector.”

Privacy and government iCtPublic sector asked Privacy Commissioner Marie shroff to share her views on how government is working to keep people’s information private. Below are her thoughts.

“Personal information is the lifeblood of most public services. But as we have seen from the ACC, Ministry of Social Development and Earthquake Commission breaches, the public sector still has a lot of work to do to lift its game on privacy.

The attitude that data management is the preserve of the IT department no longer holds. As we have seen, the security and privacy of personal information collected and held by an agency is a whole-of-organisation issue. The responsibility for embedding new ways of treating our citizens’ information respectfully, and as a critical asset, must come from the highest levels of manage-ment and leadership. It must also translate throughout all levels inside an organisation. The increased sharing of information between agencies requires excellent systems, training and care-ful management.

There are signs things are starting to change. Many depart-ments are lifting their game in response to the gaps in good privacy and security practice found by the GCIO Review of Publicly Accessible Systems. The real challenge for the public sector will be sustaining investment in privacy. It’s all very well to find some resources and some energy in the wake of a crisis and some immediate pressure from government ministers, but the Better Public Services programme and more joined-up services will

significantly raise the standards and expec-tations for personal information manage-ment into the future.

The Privacy Act was amended earlier this year to allow for departments to share infor-mation to provide efficient public services. For departments, this has the potential to make joined-up public services easier to manage and deliver because it will provide certainty about what they can do with personal information. The role of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is to ensure that the agreements are robust, and that individuals’ privacy is protected along the way.

The new legal environment is only one piece of the puzzle. There are other hurdles departments will have to overcome to build effective shared services based on shared information. There are differences in how statutes treat information and gaps in departments’ ICT capabilities. Most importantly though, people must be able to trust the government departments they are giving information to and public service professionals need to have trust that their counterparts in other agencies will protect the data being shared. These challenges require a much more sophisticated approach to privacy than we have seen so far. If we in New Zealand can get it right, we have the opportunity to be a world leader for the public sector around the world in the safe and respectful management of people’s information.”


He Tangata! The people! This Māori say-ing was a central motif at the opening ceremony for Linwood Community Link back in 2008. Today, it’s still incredibly apt. As BRIAR EDMONDS discovers, Linwood Community Link is still about people working together to achieve much more than they can achieve alone.

Community Links are part of an approach by the Ministry of Social Development to simplify the way

people access support services. Peoples’ needs are often complex and wide ranging, and Community Links are designed to be a ‘one-stop shop’. Linwood Community Link is a bright, carefully designed hub staffed with enthusiastic and caring people, where clients can access not just Work and Income, but other government and non-government support services.

Since Public Sector last checked in with Linwood Community Link in 2009, Christchurch has been radically changed due to the major earthquakes Canterbury suffered in 2010 and 2011. Roads and houses were damaged and many services have experienced continuous interruption, except services delivered from the Linwood Community Link. The Community Link’s unbroken presence in the area under these trying circumstances is no small feat.

The Linwood Community Link building has offered a comfortable, safe space for agencies to work from. At times the Community Link has also provided emergency response services and served as temporary space for agencies displaced from their usual place of business.

As the community is rebuilding, services and information the Linwood Community Link offers on housing and tenancy advice, budgeting, information for families and parenting, work and training opportunities, health, well-being and disability support, and financial assistance are essential.

The earthquakes have given the team at Linwood Community Link some unique challenges to deal with. Denise Jackson, Manager, outlines one of these: “We accommodated some extra community agencies and the Police after the earthquakes. Some of these arrangements were short-term property solutions for these groups, others were excellent partnership opportunities for Linwood Community Link long term.”

Jackson notes that ensuring Work and Income employees at the Community Link are fully aware of all the services available for clients is another special challenge.

“The wide range of organisations working out of the Community Link, as well as having to educate new staff, means that it can be a challenge for everyone to have a working knowledge of the full extent of what’s on offer. Some of our partner organisations are in the Linwood Community Link at different times throughout the week, depending on how this fits with their operational needs and the needs of the community,” she says.

Jackson and her team are meeting this challenge by providing more opportunities for both clients and staff to learn about the Community Link’s services. They have developed promotional presentations highlighting the variety of services on offer, which screen to clients in the waiting room. Jackson has also introduced regular networking sessions between the Linwood Community Link’s partner organisations and its Work and Income staff.

Another recent promotional opportunity was the brainchild of Assistant Manager Wendy Koster, who decided it was time to connect the Linwood community and Community Link partners to promote the range of services available from Linwood Community Link. An open day was held complete with sausage sizzle, face painting, and information about community services for clients and local agencies. The day was a resounding success and a celebration of the Community Link and the Linwood community’s resilience.

The successful multi-agency approach of Linwood Community Link has been replicated in other parts of New Zealand. The Sydenham New Zealand Government centre opened in Christchurch this year

and houses Inland Revenue, Senior Services, StudyLink, Child youth and Family, as well as Work and Income. There are also 13 Community Links in Auckland, two on the East Coast, six in Waikato, two in Taranaki, two in the central North Island, one in Wellington, and two in Nelson.

“It’s about connecting people to the services they need, in a way that is easy and respectful,” says Denise Jackson. “It’s about meeting people where they’re at and helping them to get the support they need.”

In 2009, Linwood Community Link was a joint recipient of the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Award Working together for Better Services.

picTured Above: MSD’s Wendy Koster enjoys the recent open day. The event has been just one way the Linwood Community Link has engaged with the local community to raise awareness about the services available through the Community Link.

Linwood Community Link – resiliency in action

“It’s about connecting people to the services they need, in a way that is easy and respectful.”


in – unless we figure out how to collaborate across multiple agen-cies we are not going to deal with the complex problems facing New Zealand.”

As Couchman explains, “The crux of Better Public Services is that none of the key things the Government expects of us can be delivered by any one agency. We will only achieve BPS results through collaboration. It means we all need to consider our own lead-ership style: Are we collaborative? Is our team collaborative?

“When you get a piece of work to do, rather than asking how you will do this, your first question should be, ‘Who will I do this with?’ That’s the collaborative ques-tion. If we role model that together and hire people who do the same, we will see things change,” she says.

Have we been here before? For those who work in the public sector, it might feel like you have heard this once or twice before: ‘Joined-up government’, ‘one-stop shop’, ‘no wrong door’, and many other phrases that are no doubt familiar.

“I’ve been in the system for a while now,” Couchman explains with a small chuckle. “I was at the State Services Commission 15 years ago and people were talking about joined-up government then and questioning why it was so hard to achieve. Now here we go again.

“Although it can make you laugh, there are some criti-cal differences this time. Firstly, it’s being driven from the top – the ministers, the Head of State Services, and the chief executives are all behind it. Secondly, we have performance measures and result areas that cannot be achieved in isolation. That is new,” she says.

With the introduction of the State Services Commission’s Leadership Capability Development and Deployment (LCDD) programme, CARL BILLINGTON spoke with a number of those involved in the programme’s design to find out what might be required of our leaders in the future.

Attempts to define the most effective leadership approaches are one of humankind’s longest running discussions. Perhaps we have trouble defining leadership because it’s one of those things that actually define us. Whatever the

case, leadership itself has a defining effect on our potential for success. In fact, the Better Public Services Advisory Group Report published in 2011 identified leadership as the “single most critical driver of success-ful change”.

leading for the system as a whole“Essentially, what we are looking at doing through the LCDD programme is building leadership capability and capacity for the whole state services system, not just for individual agencies,” explains Jacki Couchman, Deputy Chief Executive and Acting LCDD Programme Director for the State Services Commission.

“We are working with chief executives and their agencies and the Leadership Development Centre to create this new approach to lead-ership. Initially we will be focused on senior leaders, graduates, and emerging leaders, but this is about the entire leadership pipeline.”

Mike Pratt, Director of Sustainable Enterprise Limited, helped provide the conceptual framework behind the LCDD programme: “The original legislation was very much about the accountability of individual agencies and individual chief executives,” he explains.

“What we are trying to do is based upon the belief that none of us is as good as all of us. The original model of siloed accountability is not good enough for the more complex environment we now operate

© S

tefa

nie

Leuk

er |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

tomorrow’s state services through the lens

of leadership

Jacki Couchman, Deputy Chief Executive and Acting LCDD Programme Director, State Services Commission


“We have also learnt that you can’t just instruct agencies to join up. Collaboration only happens person to person, through rela-tionships. We need leaders who create an environment that prompts staff to connect and work across the organisation, across the system. It’s a very different type of leadership to the traditional command-and-control model.”

leadership that works for todayConsidering the differences in leadership models and what approaches will be most effective in tomorrow’s public service envi-ronment was an everyday part of the job for Lynelle Briggs during her time as the Australian Public Service Commissioner.

“Command-and-control models worked when society was more ordered, more struc-tured, and when people had fewer choices. To be a leader today you need to be much more than just the person with ‘boss’ on your nametag,” Briggs explains.

“Today’s world is full of ambi-guity, chaos and uncertainty. This requires a much more distribu-tive leadership style that is less about the leader and more about the quality of engagement they engender.

“What is needed now are lead-ers who treat work colleagues more like business partners, empowering people and influ-encing and supporting them to act collaboratively. Leaders need to become especially skilled at recognising and harnessing both individual and collective talent,” she adds.

It’s hard to disagree with any of these concepts, but what do they mean for us in a practical sense?

leadership in practice“Our aim is to ensure we have a pipeline of capable, high-perform-ing state servants who can step up to critical roles and leadership

responsibilities when needed. It’s about cultivating that depth across the system as a whole,” Jacki Couchman says.

“Two of the first things people will see are the introduction of new approaches to graduate recruitment and development and a programme for emerging leaders across the state services system.”

“There are some brilliant programmes and initiatives for graduates and emerging leaders already in place within some agen-cies, whereas others don’t have anything. We will build on what is already successful and develop that across the system,” she says.

Mike Pratt adds, “It’s quite a shift in what we are asking of people. There is complete commit-ment to this and everyone we have been working with agrees it’s what we must do, but changing such ingrained patterns doesn’t happen overnight.

“For the last 20 years our legislation, political practice and performance management systems have all been geared towards indi-vidual agencies. That’s the culture we have all grown up in – includ-ing those who are being asked to lead this transition,” he says.

“This is the most significant change we have seen for the state services and public sector in our generation. And yet, based on everything I’ve observed, I’m more confident than ever that we can actually pull this off.”

changing the way we bring people on boardBen Tilyard joined the State Services Commission relatively recently, coming on board initially as a graduate intern a little over three years ago. These days he works on the LCDD programme

as an advisor in the Leadership and Talent Hub.

“It would be great to see a really attractive programme, drawing the most talented graduates and actively deploying people across different agencies and projects within disciplines they are inter-ested in, but also within disciplines we know we need to develop for the future,” Tilyard says.

“This sort of approach offers graduates the experiences they need but also helps us grow a cadre of new talent across the system for the competencies we know we are going to need. But it won’t work if our graduates just end up being given photocopying and filing to do. We need to be deliberate about how and why we bring people into the system,” he adds.

This is a point Jacki Couchman is quick to pick up on: “Most times when you start a new job it’s almost as if you’ve got no career history at all. Beyond what’s on a person’s CV, there’s no visibility about what training and develop-ment we have already invested in someone in their previous agencies.

“We are developing a new

system that will help us to capture this sort of information and it will travel with them from job to job, instead of dropping off the radar each time someone starts a new role,” she says.

Moving the lcdd programme to business as usual“Ultimately, my vision is that we won’t have to talk about the LCDD programme itself anymore, it will be obvious simply from what we do. We will be moving talent to where it is most needed to deliver for New Zealanders and creat-ing leadership careers across the system,” Couchman says.

“The state services will feel like a different place to work. Graduates will be eager to join us and people will see their peers moving between agencies. And if you are a person with high potential, that will be identified and you will be connected with support and vari-ous opportunities to expand your experience.”

Mike Pratt says, “Above all, if I were to talk to a range of chief executives and other leaders across the system, they would be as equally at home articulating their role in the system as a whole, as they are describing the role they play within their own individual agency.”

Kiwis Count – service delivery channels in August, the Kiwis Count Channels Report 2013 was published by the State Services Commission. The report looks at service delivery across four channels: in person; mail, posted letter, fax; telephone, including text messages; and internet (email and websites). The report analyses the experiences of 2226 New Zealanders who completed the Kiwis Count survey in 2012 and the 3724 respondents in Kiwis Count 2009. www.ssc.govt.nz

“When you get a piece of work to do, rather than asking how you will do this, your first question should be, ‘Who will I do this with?’ That’s the collaborative question.”


They call it “the productiv-ity paradox”: the fact that New Zealand’s produc-tivity performance falls

well short of what our policy and institutional settings should be delivering.

For over a year now, the Productivity Commission has been working to better coordi-nate research aimed at answering that riddle and improve policy. Its Productivity Hub combines research efforts across govern-ment – including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; Statistics New Zealand; the Treasury; the Reserve Bank; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry for Primary Industries; and the Productivity Commission – and is building relationships outside of govern-ment as well.

Paul Conway, the commis-sion’s Director of Economics and Research, says the hub is bringing together public sector researchers

working on productivity-related issues.

“There are some people doing good work out there in the public sector, but they are too dispersed. Pulling them together in the Productivity Hub leads to more scale and allows more scope for collaboration. It’s a way of trying to overcome the disadvantages of a relatively small research commu-nity with a relatively large problem on its hands.”

In July, the hub agencies hosted a symposium to draw out some of the reasons why New Zealand’s productivity, which some analysis suggests should be 20 per cent above the OECD average based on our policies, is in fact around 20 per cent below the average.

The symposium identified a number of possible explanations for New Zealand’s poor productiv-ity performance, including:• weak competitive pressures

in some sectors, given small scale and lack of international competition and connection, reducing the incentives on businesses to improve their work practices and manage-ment performance

• organisations not realising the full gains that may be available from information technol-ogy, and from research and development

• whether current trade patterns and trading partners reflect the most valuable mix for New Zealand in the future (including the choices made by business about where to integrate into global supply chains).

These and other possible expla-nations are being further exam-ined as part of the hub’s ongoing research work, with a strong focus on that research directly informing and influencing government policy settings.

New Zealand’s distance from most other countries, combined with our poor research and devel-opment record, may explain much of the “productivity paradox”, according to research presented at the symposium. That highlights where research is needed, Conway says. “You can’t change distance, but you can think about how poli-cies can mitigate its impact.”

Research presented at the forum also showed that New Zealand’s labour productivity is about a third lower than that of Australia. But only 30 per cent of that gap is due to Australia’s having a different industry structure than New Zealand. The remaining 70 per cent is due to better perfor-mance by Australian companies compared to New Zealand compa-nies in the same industries.

A presentation by MBIE Chief Economist Roger Procter also noted that New Zealand had seen fast employment growth in some low-productivity industries, a shift

small community, large problem

– New Zealand’s productivity paradox

Agencies are trying to harness their re-sources to tackle one of New Zealand’s most puzzling issues: our poor record on productivity. MAx RASHBROOKE reports.

Paul Conway, Director of Economics and Research, Productivity Commission


that has been linked internation-ally to reliance on primary prod-ucts and an over-valued currency.

Conway’s own presentation to the forum argued that the poor productivity growth of many service firms had knock-on effects, as their products are used by exporting companies that then struggled with higher costs and lower-quality inputs than their international competitors.

Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard University pointed to the benefits of agglomeration – meaning larger cities – because cities with a higher concentration of graduates experienced faster increases in human capital and were more successful.

Paradoxically, this trend has only increased in an increasingly weightless, information-centred economy, because the complex-ity of transactions involving new knowledge places a premium on face-to-face relationships.

However, Glaeser said agglomeration was a challenge for New Zealand, so education and entrepreneurship must compensate. New Zealand should also do all it can to make the country an attractive place for skilled and talented people to come to and return to.

moving onThe next step for the hub is to produce a Forward Looking Agenda of Research, or FLARE, to identify the key productivity-related research themes for coming years.

The FLARE “builds momen-tum”, Conway says. Setting out this agenda will make research efforts more focused, identify overlaps where multiple groups are working on the same topic, and generally allow the government to get “more for less … it’s about leveraging our individual efforts into something that’s greater than the sum of the parts”.

Conway would also like to see more use made of micro-data – detailed statistics on firm performance. “There’s a micro-data revolution going on internation-ally, and we should be at the head of the table.”

New Zealand’s longitudi-nal business database (LBD) has anonymised information on the performance of hundreds of thou-sands of New Zealand compa-nies, including their employment, financial return and export perfor-mance. “There’s some good work already happening based on that data, but we can get a great deal more out of it,” Conway says.

The hub agencies have recently advertised for a private sector partner. A private partner is being sought to supplement the coop-eration within government of the hub agencies, and because private firms with expertise can add their own value. Research reports published in this partnership will remain the property of govern-ment, and “knowledge spillovers” between all LBD researchers will be encouraged.

“The broader issue is collabo-ration,” says the Productivity Commission’s General Manager Peter Alsop. “You don’t grow capability in ‘New Zealand Inc’ just by rolling up your sleeves and trying harder yourself. You need to collaborate.”

So far that collaboration has been successful, he says. The hub and the other relationships that the Productivity Commission is build-ing across government are “going well. The Productivity Hub has been welcomed by other agencies”.

In general, the commission has been pleased with the response from government departments to its work. “But one issue,” says Alsop, “is that we ideally want government agencies to put in more submissions to our inquiries – to put their views on record as other stakeholders do.”

measuring impactAs well as working to better coordinate research efforts across government, the commission has now completed four major inquir-ies on issues related to productiv-ity. The Government selects the inquiry topics and then expects the commission to run a thorough and open process to assist the commis-sion’s development of recommen-dations back to the Government.

When it comes to translating those reports into practice, Alsop says the Productivity Commission’s forthcoming annual report will show that the Government has adopted many of the recommen-

New Zealand’s distance from most other countries, combined with our poor research and development record, may explain much of the “productivity paradox”, according to research.

dations in its first two inquir-ies into housing affordability and international freight transport services: “We are pleased that the Government has adopted a signifi-cant proportion of our recommen-dations in both those inquiries.”

The commission doesn’t set itself targets for the number of recommendations adopted, because that would create incen-tives for recommendations that were easy to adopt or tailored to the desires of the government of the day.

Instead, the commission has a three-step model for evaluating whether its work has been success-ful. After a report is published, it is reviewed by an independ-ent expert. The commission then carries out a stakeholder survey of the report’s participants, and holds an independently facilitated focus group.

“It’s very stakeholder focused,” Alsop says. “It’s a different approach to that used by many agencies, but so far it has served us very well.”

For the 2013/14 year, the commission will take that approach a step further, and apply it not just to its major inquiry reports but also to its self-initi-ated research work. Appropriately enough, this exercise is, Conway says, aimed at making the commis-sion’s work “more productive”.

Peter Alsop, General Manager, Productivity Commission


PoINT of vIew

Public sector agencies are under pressure to be more innovative and flexible while the expectations of ministers and the

public rise and budgets shrink. The Government recently amended the

State Sector Act in the hope of achieving the step-change needed. The State Services Minister went so far as to describe the reforms as once-in-a-generation transformational change.

The legislative changes were intended to support the government’s Better Public Services programme which calls for the removal of barriers and a more joined-up approach to the state sector, as well as improv-ing leadership across the state services.

There is nothing wrong with these princi-ples and there are some positives.

They include the focus on a whole-of-system view of the state services, on efficient and effective outcomes, on leadership, and on introducing protection for state servants from liability for civil proceedings. The legislation also usefully clarifies some matters around the employment of chief executives and gives the State Services Commissioner flexibility in deploying them. The introduction of the notion of stewardship into the functions of the State Services Commissioner is also welcome as it signals that chief executives should have a strong focus on the longer-term well-being of their agency and the services it provides, as well as a system-wide view.

However, once-in-a-generation transfor-mational change, it is not. The legislation has missed an opportunity for a more compre-

hensive review of the management of the state sector to make it fit for the 21st century.

As Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who was part of the Fourth Labour Government which introduced the State Sector Act observed, passing a law does not in itself improve public management.

If the intention of the Better Public Services programme and the legislative reform is to support more closely aligned agencies, work-ing across agencies, talent development and system leadership, a more fundamental culture change must sit behind it.

Current human resource systems contribute to low trust workplaces and lower engage-ment levels. If we are to design public services for the 21st century then we need to move on from outdated management practices and recognise the importance of creating work-places that are based on high trust, and foster high engagement and innovative thinking at every level of an organisation.

The whole notion of leadership requires a rethink. The reforms focus too strongly on leadership development at the top level. Senior leaders cannot deliver world-class public services in isolation, without support from their colleagues. Leadership develop-ment needs to include middle management, team leaders and leadership in the workplace. Leadership should not be the sole function of the Top 200, but of public servants at every level.

New statutory duties of stewardship are welcome but there are some big questions. How can chief executives fulfil their new statutory duty of stewardship when they are

also subject to budget cuts and asked to do more with less? This Government began with a hands-off approach, leaving the detail of cuts and change to chief executives. Cuts are biting deep into capability and into service delivery levels, and impacting on regions and regional economies.

We are also seeing an increasing politi-cisation of public servants which can serve to undermine confidence. It’s important to remember that the public service is there to serve the public, not just the current execu-tive. As a result, we need to consider how best to deliver ethical quality services to the public as a core principle in the management of the public sector.

Part of the culture change must also be on improving our public sector employment rela-tions conditions framework. The state services should be a bastion of good employment prac-tices. We need a framework which facilitates whole-of-government practices, provides fair and equitable conditions and career paths to those delivering public services wherever they work.

In his speech for the PSA/Fabian Society lecture series earlier this year, Sir Geoffrey Palmer called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into state services. It’s something the incoming 2014 government should seriously consider to foster some political consensus around the role and shape of state services for the 21st century. Tinkering around the edges of current legislation without a renewed vision and purpose is not the answer.

State sector reforms – a missed opportunityby brenda Pilott, PSA National Secretary

workplace dynamics in new Zealand Public serviceson 5 September, the PSA launched the Workplace Dynamics in New Zealand Public Services report. Prepared by the Industrial Relations Centre and the School of Management Victoria University of Wellington, the report analyses the responses to a survey of PSA members.

The survey represents the largest of its kind ever undertaken and provides a measure of organisational performance across the public sector.

The full report is available at www.psa.org.nz.

Are you ahead of the game?

Whether you want to implement strategy, develop leaders or accelerate change, you will achieve your goals with us.

We offer customised, practical and relevant programmes of learning for the public sector.

The Skills Organisationskills.org.nz

Aligned to the Lominger Framework, our integrated learning solutions can develop key competencies including :

• Business acumen• Conflict management• Understanding others • Building effective teams • Managing vision and purpose • Creativity

Special offerPublic Sector Journal readers will receive

10% discount on our online learning

products. To find out more : PSJoffer@

skills.org.nz

To find out more and to enrol, contact the School of Government now.You can email [email protected], call 04-463 5453 or visit www.victoria.ac.nz/sog

FROM

THE C

ROW

D.

WHEN YOU’RE READY TO RISE ABOVE THE REST,CONTACT THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT.We’re the only school of government in New Zealand. Located in the heart of government, we have access to the people, places and policy makers that will shape your future.

Our staff have extensive public sector experience and your study will be applied through relevant case studies.

Our courses are flexible to accommodate your work schedule. We also offer a range of study options to suit your needs and experience. Choose from Certificate or Diploma Courses that will take your career to the next level and open the door to a Masters Degree in Public Management or Public Policy.

Whatever level you study, you’ll find our courses and those who take them are highly sought after.

STAND OUT

Public Sector Volume 36:Issue 3

Documents

Transcript of Public Sector Volume 36:Issue 3