Public Sector Journal 46.2 - Winter 2023

POLITICISATION IN THE NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC SERVICE

WHAT DRIVES TRUST IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS?

PUBLISHER

The Institute of Public Administration

New Zealand

PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand

Phone: +64 4 463 6940

Email: admin@ipanz.org.nz

Website: www.ipanz.org.nz

ISSN 0110-5191 (Print)

ISSN 1176-9831 (Online)

The whole of the literary matter of Public Sector is copyright. Please contact the editor if you are interested in reproducing any Public Sector content.

EDITOR

Kathy Catton: editor@ipanz.org.nz

CONTRIBUTORS

Kate Butler

Chris Eichbaum

Jane Fraser-Jones

Derek Gill

Santiago González

Jim McAloon

Liza van der Merwe

David Morgan

Kathy Ombler

Mayuresh Prasad

Liam Russell

Richard Shaw

JOURNAL ADVISORY GROUP

Barbara Allen

Kay Booth

Kathy Catton

John Larkindale

Liz MacPherson

Paula Martin

Liam Russell

ADVERTISING

Phone: +64 4 463 6940

Email: admin@ipanz.org.nz

CONTRIBUTIONS

Public Sector welcomes contributions to each issue from readers.

Please contact the editor for more information.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

IPANZ welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions. Please email admin@ipanz.org.nz, phone +64 4 463 6940 or visit www.ipanz.org.nz to register online.

DISCLAIMER

Opinions expressed in Public Sector are those of various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor, the journal advisory group, or IPANZ.

Every effort is made to provide accurate and factual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur.

CONTENTS

President’s message

Lead story

Politicisation in the New Zealand public service

Chris Eichbaum and Richard Shaw explore politicisation and ask what the recent Working in the Public Service survey tells us about it.

Investigation

What drives trust in public institutions?

Trust is a complex concept – especially when it comes to trust in public institutions. Santiago González from the OECD shares his findings on trust in New Zealand public agencies and how we benchmark against other countries.

History of the Public Service

History of the Waitangi Tribunal

Jim McAloon summarises the history of the Waitangi Tribunal and shows that the Tribunal has ensured that the Treaty is no longer regarded as a relic or mere symbol.

Public Service System

The state of stewardship in the core state Derek Gill takes an in-depth look at the public service principle of stewardship, drawing on the Working in the Public Service survey data.

Jobs you’ve never heard of Bail Support Officer

Liam Russell examines the role of Bail Support Officers, whose job is to help improve outcomes for people going through the criminal justice system.

Insights

Operating in a political system without operating politically

Kate Butler brings together some insights about political nous, following a series of events by IPANZ and the Australia New Zealand School of Government.

Public service kamahi making a difference

Resolving conflict – for employers and employees

Kathy Ombler talks to Trisha Harrison-Hunt about her role as an employment mediator within MBIE.

Analysis

Aotearoa New Zealand’s turning point

This Deloitte report looks at two scenarios towards decarbonisation as a new engine of economic growth and the bold steps required to make a difference.

Public Sector is printed on environmentally responsible paper produced using ECF, third-party certified pulp from responsible sources and manufactured under the ISO14001 Environmental Management System.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

President Liz MacPherson

“The art of walking upright here...”

IPANZ PRESIDENT LIZ MACPHERSON

Kāore te kumara e kōrere mō tōna ake reka

The kumara does not speak of its own sweetness

He aha te kai a te rangitira? He kōrero, he kōrero, he korero.

Around the motu over the last month or so, university students have been graduating. Mid-May was Victoria University of Wellington Te Herenga Waka’s turn. With two daughters graduating in separate faculties, I had the privilege of attending two parades and two graduation ceremonies.

History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes – Mark Twain

What is the food of the leader? It is knowledge, it is communication.

On the auspicious date of 22/2/2022, IPANZ held its much-deferred annual conference as an online conference. Miraculously, our speakers, sponsors, and more importantly, our attendees stayed with us. My thanks to all those who attended. It was a great day, providing much food for thought, debate, and action.

On 21 September 2021, IPANZ will be holding its annual conference. The focus of the conference is on the key challenges facing the public service, both current and future. It is a conference designed to provide public service professionals with the opportunity to pause, listen, reflect, and learn together.

The overwhelming emotion of both days was of joy and celebration. The beaming smiles of the parading graduates as thronging crowds cheered them down Lambton Quay. The pride on the faces of friends and whānau. The spontaneous karanga, songs, chants, and haka that broke out as a loved one crossed the stage, the auditorium echoing with aroha, delight, and joy in their achievements.

For me, perhaps the most thought-provoking concept was introduced by Justice Joe Williams in the keynote Ivan Kwok memorial lecture entitled “Crown–Māori Relations: A 200-year Search for Partnership”. Confronting yet constructive, devastatingly honest, yet hopeful and optimistic, Justice Joe challenged us to strive against our national failing of “amnesia” – where we forget and therefore do not learn from the possibilities of the past. An amnesia that leads us to believe that we are the first generation to have tried to find the solution to true partnership between Māori and the Crown – to forget that the potential for partnership has repeatedly emerged over the last 180 years.

difference and the hope they inspired in him. In a world full of existential crises and uncertainty, he argued that what they had been taught at university – to think critically, to examine the evidence, question and advocate, to speak truth to power – was never more crucial than now. In a world of uncertainty, his advice was to take counsel from New Zealand poet Glen Colquhoun: “…the art of walking upright here is the art of using both feet. One is for holding on. One is for letting go.” Stand firm in who you are, in your whakapapa, in what you have been taught and use this to step forward, to explore, to learn, to love. And to act. Quoting another New Zealand poet, Lauris Edmond, Chancellor Allen challenged the graduates to use their learning to make a difference for people, place and planet. “…you have to do and be, not simply watch or even describe.”

to see possibilities rather than constraints, and a desire to make a difference. One of the pre-eminent legal minds of his generation, he always gave respect to whomever he was listening to – whether it was a new graduate or the prime minister.

confronted a global pandemic in Aotearoa New Zealand. Not the first time we have joined forces with allies to confront a global threat. Not the first time we have sought answers to housing issues. Nor is it the first time we have confronted competing priorities regarding resources. As Justice Joe said: “We are not on a linear pathway to enlightenment.” We are all familiar with the phrase “those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”. If we fail to listen to the past, we can become blinded by our current assumptions and bias. We become vulnerable to re-inventing failed solutions or falling victim to “snake oil”. We have no idea where our choices will take us. This is all too depressingly true.

I also got to listen to four challenging, entertaining and characteristically high-energy speeches by Chancellor John Allen. As is his way, the speeches were punctuated with poetry, statistics, historical references, and selfdeprecating humour, all accompanied by vigorous gestures. While congratulating them on their achievements, the Chancellor’s speeches focused on the future the graduates were entering, their ability to shape it and make a

The conference begins with an address in honour of an exemplary public servant, the inaugural Ivan Kwok Memorial Lecture, given by Justice Joe Williams. The focus of the lecture is on one of our greatest challenges and opportunities – realising a real partnership between Māori and the Crown.

The whakataukī “kāore te kumara e kōrere mō tōna ake reka –the kumara does not speak of its own sweetness” could have been composed for Ivan Kwok. He was a man of great humility, warmth, and kindness coupled with a sharp intellect, the ability

But is the impact of this amnesia limited to Crown–Māori relationships? I would argue no. This is not the first time we have

Contributions Please

As a proud parent, I left the auditorium inspired with hope for the future. As the President of IPANZ, I was left wondering how many of these shiny new graduates would seek to make a difference through joining the public sector. Have we created a space where they can walk upright? And are we ready for the transformational change they will bring when they do?

But it is in his relationship with iwi leaders, his work to further a true partnership between Māori and the Crown, that Ivan provides us with both challenge and hope. Here was a man who was not tangata whenua but who was respected across te ao Māori. Why? Because Ivan believed in listening deeply to understand, in the true power of conversation, in engaging early, in people over process. Ivan demonstrated that by sitting down together and understanding each other’s interest at a deep relational level, the Treaty partners could find new and different ways of working with each other – ways that benefited Māori and the nation as a whole. He aha te kai a te rangitira? He korero, he korero, he korero.

However, the concept of “amnesia” gave me cause for hope and optimism. We have within ourselves – globally, nationally, locally, and within our communities – the concepts, stories, and ideas that can help us solve current and future challenges. We can recover these memories. Our hindsight can become our foresight. The challenge is to ensure that this “collective memory” is truly reflective of all our stories, of the diversity of our experience as a nation – that it is not partial or selective. This is a challenge that, judging from their session at the IPANZ conference, our new public servants, our rangatahi, are truly alive to, which gives me enormous optimism for the future.

Ivan’s tangi, which was held at Pipitea Marae, was attended by iwi leaders, past and present ministers of finance, and other dignitaries. Many spoke of Ivan’s “sweetness”, of the huge legacy of this humble public servant. It is my hope that the Ivan Kwok Memorial Lecture series will become part of this legacy – that the kōrero generated by these addresses will help sustain a new generation of public sector leaders as we take on the challenges of the future for the benefit of all.

Public Sector journal is always happy to receive contributions from readers.

If you’re working on an interesting project in the public sector or have something relevant to say about a particular issue, think about sending us a short article on the subject.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

IPANZ PRESIDENT LIZ MACPHERSON

IPANZ

POLITICISATION IN THE NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC SERVICE

Politicisation, which is when partisan considerations get into the advice and operations of a non-partisan public service, is a perennial concern. Richard Shaw (Professor in Politics at Massey University) and Chris Eichbaum (Adjunct Professor in the School of Government at Victoria University of Wellington) explore politicisation in the New Zealand public service and ask what the recent Working in the Public Service survey tells us about it.

The conversation about politicisation is generally characterised by a good deal of noise, various assumptions regarding what should be the case and conflicting conceptions about exactly what is at issue. In this country, perhaps the only point on which there is something approaching agreement is that politicisation is something to be avoided (although there are those who would contest this, too).

In this article, we summarise what’s been written on politicisation and look at the data collected through the

Working in the Public Service survey. We’d like to provide a profile on the nature and extent of politicisation in the New Zealand public service.

Specifically, we’ll explore three related conceptions of politicisation: formal, functional, and administrative. The first speaks to the role of political executives (Cabinet in the New Zealand context) in critical public service appointments, the second to the motives and activities of the administrative executive (the ‘public service’, broadly defined) and the third to the conduct of ministerial advisors, the most recent addition to the contemporary executive triangle. We take each concept in turn, providing a brief definition and then examining the survey data through that particular lens. When taken together, these ideas help explain what intra-executive encounters mean for the impartiality of the public service.

Formal politicisation

Most discussions about politicisation tend to focus on the incentives for ministers to appoint sympathetic people to key bureaucratic positions. The sympathy may be ideological, with political ‘fellow travellers’ appointed to fill positions vacated with a change of government. In a related, but not equivalent

Richard Shaw

Chris Eichbaum

sense, the sympathy may relate to the policy preferences of the government of the day and extend to domain knowledge or expertise within a particular policy field. In these ‘formal’ ideas of politicisation, control over and criteria for hiring people into the top levels of the public service are seen as the most important way for politicians to get the senior bureaucrats to work with responsiveness and loyalty. First principles discussions about the value of different policy responses to a problem – or even whether a ‘problem’ exists – are replaced by advice on how to apply a policy response to a ‘problem’ that has already been decided.

In Peters and Pierre’s publication Politicisation of the public service in comparative perspective: The quest for control, the authors define civil service politicisation as “the substitution of political criteria for merit-based criteria in the selection, retention, promotion, rewards and disciplining of members of the civil service”.

As a means of asserting control over the public service, the assumption is that if top officials are ‘one of us’ (to paraphrase former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher), they are more likely to design and deliver the sorts of policies ‘we’ want – or, better still, get on with implementing the policies that the government of the day has already determined are both justified and required.

What does the survey tell us?

The survey questionnaire designed by BusinessDesk and IPANZ, included a series of questions regarding merit appointments in the civil service. Even though these questions were about appointments within departments and agencies (and not just those at the very top), respondents’ opinions on the nature and effects of hiring and promotion in the public service are certainly important.

The indications are that New Zealand’s public servants disagree about both what the merit principle means and how it should be used. Broadly, just over 60 percent of respondents were confident that merit considerations drive appointments and promotions in their own organisations (unsurprisingly, Tier 1/Tier 2 respondents had the highest rates of agreement). At the same time, roughly the same proportion felt that if they were to apply for another position within central government, that process would be based on the merits of the applicants. However, under half (42.8 percent) of respondents disagree that the public service is less likely these days to make meritbased appointments than it was in the past: 29.6 percent agree or strongly agree that this is so, while 27.6 percent did not express a view on the matter.

Significantly, respondents tended to frame ‘merit’ as a diversity issue (rather than one of technical expertise or political responsiveness). As might be expected, positions are split. For one participant, there “is a strong agenda around Diversity and Inclusion, which I think creates a bias against merit-based appointments. … [W]e are now going on Te Tiriti training to understand what our obligations are. I fear this is an attempt to support political bias.” For another, “Appointments are based on ethnicity, gender then merit, in that order. White men are actively discriminated against.” For others, however –including those who feel “merit-based appointments continue to appoint people with a narrow range of lived experiences and … encourage a Wellington view of the world that is out of sync with the lived realities of most people”, and that such processes “privilege those that are already privileged” – more could be done to ensure a more diverse public sector workforce.

AS A MEANS OF ASSERTING CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC SERVICE,

Functional politicisation

Functional politicisation, according to Hustedt and Salomonsen’s 2014 article in the International Review of Administrative Sciences describes “a mechanism by which the public service performs politically responsive bureaucratic behaviour”. Here it is officials’ conduct rather than the basis of their appointment which is the focus. More specifically, what is being looked at is how public workers choose to

THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT IF TOP OFFICIALS ARE ‘ONE OF US’, THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO DESIGN AND DELIVER THE SORTS OF POLICIES ‘WE’ WANT.

include political factors in their work. In short, the behavioural influences are endogenous: politicisation is something that we ‘do to ourselves’.

How free and frank are public servants really?

The survey items concerning the provision of free and frank advice provide the clearest insights into the extent to which functional politicisation is an issue in the public service. Most respondents (74 percent) believe their organisation’s senior leaders model the principle of free and frank advice. However, some 28 percent of Tier 3–5 respondents indicated they worried about how popular their own advice would be within their organisation or with the government (a concern shared by only 11.8 percent of Tier 1/Tier 2 respondents). More generally, respondents are split on the proposition that the public service is less free and frank with its advice than it once was: 31.3 percent believe this to be the case, while 32.5 percent take the opposite view.

may also be a function of the longevity of administrations, with one participant suggesting that “working in the public service in the third term of the National government, most advice was self-censored. We knew what would rile ministers and what they wanted to hear.” This respondent also suggested that the consequences of this sort of partisan effect can settle, or solidify, within the public service: “Under the (2017) coalition government, after nine years of National, some senior public servants struggled to pivot to be more open-minded/free and frank advice even though ministers, I think, were genuinely asking us for our ideas (the stuff we’d had to sit on for nine years).” Anecdotally, we have heard from Ministers in that incoming government that their challenge was eliciting the free-thinking and challenging ideas associated with free and frank advice. The institutional predisposition was reactive and risk-averse.

JUST OVER 60 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WERE CONFIDENT THAT MERIT CONSIDERATIONS DRIVE APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS IN THEIR OWN ORGANISATIONS.

Administrative politicisation

The third concept, administrative politicisation, refers to interventions by political advisers “that offend against the principles and conventions associated with a professional and impartial civil service” (as written by us in 2014 in Governance). The concept has both procedural and substantive dimensions. The first describes efforts by political staff to constrain officials’ capacity to provide responsible competence (for example, by obstructing their access to ministers). In contrast, the second refers to direct attempts to inject partisan considerations into public servants’ advice (by, for instance, directing officials to tailor their advice in particular ways).

Participants’ textual responses elaborated on these concerns. References to self-censorship included that, “Agencies are very risk-averse and tell the Ministers what they want to hear”; “The viewpoints of public servants are increasingly polarised and partisan, and workplaces make it difficult to hold alternative positions”; and “My observation … is that managers are more inclined to ‘manage upwards’ and factor consideration of political risks into their provision of advice (tell the minister what s/he wants to hear, warn them of any adverse consequences and advise them in advance of how to manage fallout).”

Some of this might be in anticipation of pressure being brought to bear by ministers and their political advisers. However, it

Survey respondents were asked what they thought about the idea that ministerial advisers do not encourage free and honest advice on all of the government’s policy options. Twothirds (64.8 percent) of all respondents either did not express a view on the statement or neither agreed nor disagreed with it (suggesting, perhaps, that many participants have little or no contact with advisers). Some 24 percent either strongly or mainly agreed with the statement, and just over 11 percent took issue with it. A quarter of respondents (25.4 percent) agreed that the risks posed by ministerial advisers to public service neutrality have increased over time, with just 7.8 percent suggesting that is not the case (and fully 66.8 percent opting not to take a definitive position on the matter). Overall, senior respondents tended to be less sanguine about

ministerial advisers than those further down the chain of command: familiarity may not breed contempt, but it may engender caution.

public service. First, it is not to be found on a spectrum; rather, politicisation exists in the context of complex interactions between ministers, ministerial advisers and officials. As such, there are demand and supply sides to the issue. Politicisation is not just something that is done to public servants: it can also be something officials engage in themselves. The data surveyed here suggest that in addition to outside pressures, politicisation is also bubbling up from within departments and agencies. This says something about the internal state of these organisations, such as incentives built into the appointment process, that can’t be put solely on the shoulders of political advisers or ministers.

The case for ministerial advisers

Both kinds of administrative politicisation were mentioned by respondents when talking about ministerial advisers. The comment that “ministerial advisors, in particular PMO, exercise a constraining influence on our ability to provide good advice that is outside the sometimes doctrinaire positions promoted by PM/Ministers” is consistent with substantive administrative politicisation, while the reflection that there was “someone who had been working for two years and vetoing the advice we sent over to a Minister” points to procedural interference on the part of political staff.

Some participants made the positive case for ministerial advisers. An experienced, skilled ministerial adviser can serve as a sort of interpreter, helping a department understand the mind of the minister. As one respondent explained: “They can help with the load on Ministers and provide valuable feedback to departments, they can help us with understanding of context and identifying stakeholders in issues, can help with understanding a minister’s programme.” For another, “Political advisors who act within their mandate provide clarity about the line between partisan and non-partisan activity, assisting public servants to remain within their domain.”

These comments resonate strongly with the overall thrust of the findings of our own research over an extended period. There are risks, but on balance, they are being managed or mitigated. Also, aggregate assessments risk masking specific cases, which may or may not surface in the public domain. While there is evidence of egregious behaviour by political advisors, the issue is less systemic than situational – and, assuming that Ministers (and their staff) are familiar with the Cabinet Manual, may well be somewhat heroic.

Concluding comments – the need to keep talking Stepping back from the details, there are a few things to say about views regarding politicisation in the New Zealand

MOST RESPONDENTS (74 PERCENT) BELIEVE THEIR ORGANISATION’S SENIOR LEADERS MODEL THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE AND FRANK ADVICE.

Second, the three forms of politicisation are not discrete categories of behaviour. For instance, the observation that “many government departments, including my own, are terrible at pushing back against unreasonable or plain stupid requests by ministerial advisors and ministers” points to an interplay between administrative (unreasonable or stupid requests from advisers) and functional (which we don’t push back against) forms of politicisation. Here is a second example of this sort of thing: “Political advisors insist on bad OIA processes and decisions (regardless of whether Minister or agency is OIA’d). Agencies cave to this behaviour.” Rather than restricting our understandings of politicisation to matters of appointment and promotion, we should take a broader view.

Relatedly, it is worth noting that in other contexts, some feel functional politicisation is unproblematic. As Öhberg and colleagues wrote in 2017, for instance, a civil service acting “without regard for their government’s political ambitions would be of limited use to the same, or even worse: be beyond democratic control”. In this country, however (as in the wider Westminster community), we usually have a different conversation. There is a minority view that civil servants can be sensitive to the situational risks of ministers’ political environments, such that responsive and responsible competence coexist in a form of “constrained partisanship” (as written by Mulgan in the article ‘How much responsiveness is too much or too little?’, published in the Australian Journal of Public Administration in 2008).

Most of the time, though, this kind of tempered bias is not allowed in the public service. Aucoin (writing in 2012 in Governance) is especially scathing about how much loyalty to and support for the government of the day has come to require “promiscuous partisanship” amongst civil servants. That tone

AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED, POSITIONS ARE SPLIT. FOR ONE PARTICIPANT, THERE “IS A STRONG AGENDA AROUND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, WHICH I THINK CREATES A BIAS AGAINST MERIT-BASED APPOINTMENTS”.

is also struck by some participants in the Working in the Public Service survey.

THE VIEWPOINTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE INCREASINGLY POLARISED AND PARTISAN.

Finally, while temperatures often rise in debates about politicisation, it is important to remind ourselves that the issue is as much facts as it is about rules. We constantly need to talk about the causes and effects of politicisation in this country, and the Working in the Public Service survey has given us exactly the kind of information we need to do that.

FUTURE READING

Aucoin, P. (2012). New political governance in Westminster systems: Impartial public administration and management performance at risk. Governance, 25(2), 177–99.

Give a damn about your

So do we. That’s why every year Allen + Clarke donates up to 1,000 hours of consulting services to community focused organisations of any size, anywhere in Aotearoa.

Eichbaum, C. and Shaw, R. (2008). Revisiting politicisation: Political advisers and public servants in Westminster systems. Governance, 21(3), 337–63.

Hustedt, T. and Salomonsen, H. (2014). Ensuring political responsiveness: Politicisation mechanisms in ministerial bureaucracies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(4), 746–65.

Mulgan R. (2008). How much responsiveness is too much or too little? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(3), 345–56.

Peters, B. G. and Pierre, P. (2004). Politicisation of the public service: Concepts, causes, and consequences. In B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicisation of the public service in comparative perspective: The quest for control (1–13). New York: Routledge.

Öhberg, P., Christiansen, P. M. and Niklasson, B. (2017). Administrative politicisation or contestability? How political advisers affect neutral competence in policy processes. Public Administration, 95(1), 269–85.

WHAT DRIVES TRUST IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS IN NEW ZEALAND?

and a Steering Group of New Zealand institutions, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Manatū Aorere, Stats New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa, Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs, and Te Tāhū o te Ture Ministry of Justice.

Trust is a complex concept –especially when it comes to trust in public institutions. Nonetheless, it plays a vital role in whether those institutions achieve good results and facilitate social harmony.

Santiago González, Economist and Policy Analyst at the OECD, outlines how New Zealand benchmarks against other countries.

Levels of trust in public institutions tell us something about how people perceive the quality of, and how they interact with, those institutions in democratic countries.

Last March, New Zealand joined South Korea, Finland, and Norway to become the fourth OECD Member country to complete an in-depth case study on the drivers of trust in public institutions. The recently published study was carried out by the OECD Public Governance Directorate to support Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission in its efforts to build trust in the public sector by providing evidence on how people perceive the public sector’s trustworthiness as well as recommendations for improvement. The work was overseen by the Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission

What does the report tell us?

In the study, trust is defined as “a person’s belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectations of positive behaviour”, according to the OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. The OECD has devoted substantial effort over the past five years to understanding what drives trust in public institutions and how to measure it. Its framework on the drivers of trust in public institutions recognises five public governance drivers of institutional trust: government responsiveness and reliability in delivering public services and anticipating new needs as well as government principles of integrity, openness, and fairness. Responsiveness and reliability are encompassed as government competencies, while integrity, openness, and fairness are categorised as values.

2021 and April 2022 in 22 OECD countries, including New Zealand. The OECD Trust Survey was implemented in most countries between November and December 2021. In a handful of countries, it was implemented in early 2022. In New Zealand, the survey was applied between February 8th and February 24th, 2022. This collection period coincides with the Wellington protests, which may introduce some bias into responses. The survey was carried out by Research New Zealand and achieved an effective sample of 2,211 respondents.

What does the report tell us?

The findings from the questionnaire, along with more than 40 semi-structured interviews with senior civil servants, civil society, representatives from ethnic groups and desktop research, form the backbone of the in-depth report. In the study, New Zealand is benchmarked against other small, advanced economies such as Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden and to other Anglophone countries that include Australia, Ireland, Canada, and the United Kingdom, as well as to the OECD average.

countries between November and December 2021. In a handful of countries, it was implemented in early 2022. In New Zealand, the survey was applied between February 8th and February 24th, 2022. This collection period coincides with the Wellington protests, which may introduce some bias into responses. The survey was carried out by Research New Zealand and achieved an effective sample of 2211 respondents.

The findings from the questionnaire, along with more than 40 semi-structured interviews with senior civil servants, civil society, representatives from ethnic groups and desktop research, form the backbone of the in-depth report. In the study, New Zealand is benchmarked against other small, advanced economies such as Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden and to other Anglophone countries that include Australia, Ireland, Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as to the OECD average.

According to Brezzi et al’s publication An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges, the framework, revisited during 2020 and 2021 following the COVID-19 pandemic, also allows space for other drivers related to personal characteristics, culture, political preferences, and current economic situation, as well as their perceptions of government action on intergenerational and global challenges.

countries between November and December 2021. In a handful of countries, it was implemented in early 2022. In New Zealand, the survey was applied between February 8th and February 24th, 2022. This collection period coincides with the Wellington protests, which may introduce some bias into responses. The survey was carried out by Research New Zealand and achieved an effective sample of 2211 respondents.

What does the report tell us?

First, to measure trust levels, the OECD carried out the first cross-country survey on the Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (OECD Trust Survey) between November

Levels of trust are high in New Zealand when compared to other OECD countries. In New Zealand, 55 percent of the population trusts the public service. This is above the OECD average (50 percent) and in the middle of the reference group, after Ireland, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom, but above Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden (Figure 1). Beyond differences among countries, the study also shows significant differences in trust among population groups in New Zealand: people with high levels of education, older respondents, and males report significantly higher levels of trust in the public service.

Levels of trust are high in New Zealand when compared to other OECD countries. In New Zealand, 55 percent of the population trusts the public service. This is above the OECD average (50 percent) and in the middle of the reference group, after Ireland, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom, but above Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden (Figure 1). Beyond differences among countries, the study also shows significant differences in trust among population groups in New Zealand: people with high levels of education, older respondents, and males report significantly higher levels of trust in the public service.

Figure 1 New Zealanders have fairly high confidence in the public service

Share of respondents who indicate confidence in the public service in New Zealand, selected countries and OECD average, 2021

Trust Neutral Do not trust Don't know

The findings from the questionnaire, along with more than 40 semi-structured interviews with senior civil servants, civil society, representatives from ethnic groups and desktop research, form the backbone of the in-depth report. In the study, New Zealand is benchmarked against other small, advanced economies such as Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden and to other Anglophone countries that include Australia, Ireland, Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as to the OECD average.

Levels of trust are high in New Zealand when compared to other OECD countries. In New Zealand, 55 percent of the population trusts the public service. This is above the OECD average (50 percent) and in the middle of the reference group, after Ireland, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom, but above Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden (Figure 1). Beyond differences among countries, the study also shows significant differences in trust among population groups in New Zealand: people with high levels of education, older respondents, and males report significantly higher levels of trust in the public service.

Share of respondents who indicate confidence in the public service in New Zealand, selected countries and OECD average, 2021

Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)

Note: Figure 1 presents responses to the question, “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the public service?” The “trust” proportion is the

Santiago González

Figure 1 New Zealanders have fairly high confidence in the public service

Figure 1 New Zealanders have fairly high confidence in the public service

Share of respondents who indicate confidence in the public service in New Zealand, selected countries and OECD average, 2021

Note: Figure 1 presents responses to the question, “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the public service?” The “trust” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “do not trust” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don’t know” was a separate answer choice. OECD(22) refers to the unweighted average across 22 OECD countries.

High levels of trust in New Zealand should not, however, be taken for granted. As new challenges emerge and old ones reappear after the COVID-19 pandemic, people in New Zealand expect the government to build on the lessons learnt to improve service delivery and the resilience of public institutions.

public service in a logistic estimation that controls for individual characteristics and self-reported levels of interpersonal trust. All variables depicted are statistically significant at 99 percent, except responsiveness, which is statistically significant at 95 percent. Only questions derived from the OECD Trust Framework are depicted on the x-axis, while individual characteristics such as age, gender, and education, which also may be statistically significant, are not shown.

Recommendations to preserve and strengthen New Zealand’s trust capital include:

keep investing in and improving initiatives for political socialisation and outreach to specific segments of the population, such as the young, the less educated, or other underrepresented groups.

High levels of institutional trust are an invaluable asset that will help New Zealand navigate complex challenges while preserving its place as a leader among OECD countries in several public governance domains.

aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “do not trust” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don’t know” was a separate answer choice. OECD(22) refers to the unweighted average across 22 OECD countries. Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)

Indeed, the study finds that the extent to which public institutions are perceived as responsive in improving public services has the highest potential impact on trust in the public service. According to the survey, 42.7 percent of respondents expect that if a service is working badly and people complain about it, it will be improved. Trust in the public service could rise by 6.3 percentage points if the average New Zealander had slightly higher hopes about how quickly services would improve. This is measured by a one standard deviation increase (see Figure 2). Government preparedness to protect people in the event of a future pandemic or other catastrophic event could also greatly influence trust in the public service. If the average responder had a slightly better view of how prepared the government was, trust in the public service would go up by almost 5 percentage points.

• continuing to monitor trust in public institutions and its drivers as crucial guidance on where to invest in preserving and strengthening trust in public institutions

• improving delivery and responsiveness of public services by ensuring that all frontline services have effective and regularly used feedback loops on citizen experience and by ensuring that all agencies are routinely analysing the experience of different population groups and communities

Peter Hughes, Public Service Commissioner, in response to the survey, said it was particularly pleasing to see the OECD acknowledge “the high levels of institutional trust in New Zealand”. He goes on to say “Trust and confidence is something that cannot be taken for granted. Public servants work hard every day to build and maintain it. Without public trust the Public Service loses its licence to operate”.

High levels of trust in New Zealand should not, however, be taken for granted. As new challenges emerge and old ones reappear after the COVID-19 pandemic, people in New Zealand expect the government to build on the lessons learnt to improve service delivery and the resilience of public institutions.

• strengthening institutional mechanisms for long-term policy and foresight, including longterm briefings, and promoting conversations about how these tools could systematically influence policymaking

Santiago González is the lead economist of the Governance Indicators and Performance evaluation division of the OECD Public Governance Directorate. He has been the project manager of case studies about the drivers of public trust in Korea, Finland, Norway and New Zealand.

Indeed, the study finds that the extent to which public institutions are perceived as responsive in improving public services has the highest potential impact on trust in the public service. According to the survey, 42.7 percent of respondents expect that if a service is working badly and people complain about it, it will be improved. Trust in the public service could rise by 6.3 percentage points if the average New Zealander had slightly higher hopes about how quickly services would be provided. This is measured by a one standard deviation increase. (see Figure 2). Government preparedness to protect people in the event of a future pandemic or other catastrophic event could also greatly influence trust in the public service. If the average responder had a slightly better view of how prepared the government was, trust in the public service would go up by almost 5 percentage points.

Note: The Figure 2 shows the most robust determinants of self-reported trust in

• proactively reaching out to people who feel left behind, preventing participation gaps from becoming structural political inequalities. Accordingly, it is essential to

FUTURE READING

OECD (2023), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in New Zealand, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/948accf8-en.

OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.

Brezzi, M., et al. (2021), An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ b6c5478c-en.

OECD (2017), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264278219-

Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)

Note: The figure shows the most robust determinants of self-reported trust in public service in a logistic estimation that controls for individual characteristics and self-reported levels of

Figure 2. Service responsiveness has the highest explanatory power for trust in the public service

Figure 2. Service responsiveness has the highest explanatory power for trust in the public service

HISTORY OF THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

but pollution had resulted, and there were further plans that the Motunui synthetic petrol plant would discharge waste in the same area. The reefs and fishing grounds belonged to particular marae and hapū, who were thus denied the fishing rights guaranteed under the Treaty.

In March 1983 – just over 40 years ago – the Waitangi Tribunal issued its report on a claim by Te Āti Awa regarding the Waitara fishing grounds. The report was a landmark, being the first one in which it seemed that the Tribunal might have real influence and be prepared to use that influence. Over the next few years, the Tribunal reshaped the discussion around the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal was established by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 in the final weeks of the third Labour government’s term. The Act was taken through Parliament by Northern Māori MP Matiu Rata, the first Māori to hold the Māori Affairs portfolio in 40 years.

The 1975 legislation was cautious. It provided for a Tribunal of three. The Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court would chair the Tribunal; of the other two members, one was to be Māori. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to Crown policy and action after the Act came into effect. The Act recognised that the Treaty texts were in English and in Māori and gave the Tribunal “exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the two texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them”.

Given its limitation to 1975 onwards and the narrow way in which it interpreted its powers, the Tribunal initially had minimal impact. The first claim was brought, in 1977, by Joe Hawke, who had been prosecuted for breaching fisheries regulations. Hawke had taken shellfish from the traditional Ngāti Whātua fishing grounds; he maintained that the Treaty guaranteed customary fishing rights and that, therefore, the fisheries regulations under which he had been prosecuted were in breach of the Treaty. The Tribunal held that Hawke had suffered no prejudice because he had been discharged without conviction.

What changed things was the appointment, in 1980, of Edward Taihakurei Durie as the first Māori Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. In June 1981, Aila Taylor filed the claim on behalf of Te Āti Awa. There were two issues: local authorities had allowed the discharge of treated sewage over or near certain fishing reefs,

The Tribunal decided to hear the case on a Te Āti Awa marae, which would, as the report noted, mean Māori “would be better able to express their feelings and make their concerns known”, and the Tribunal itself would be “able to reach the real heart of the matter”. The Tribunal upheld the claim, recommended that the Motunui outfall not proceed, and found that the Treaty obliged the Crown to protect Māori use of their fishing grounds, and “to confer upon the hapū most closely associated there with certain rights of control”.

Over the next four years, the Tribunal would hear other landmark cases in which it developed its approach to the Treaty. The Tribunal emphasised the “surrounding circumstances” and the declared intention. Thus, the protection of Māori interests was emphasised by the Colonial Office, by the governor and his agents, and by Māori signatories themselves.

On the language issue, the Tribunal used orthodox principles whereby ambiguity between languages is resolved against the interests of the party that wrote the Treaty, as well as United States jurisprudence that treaties with indigenous peoples were to be understood in the sense that the indigenous people themselves understood them.

Thus, the Māori version, te Tiriti, was accorded significant weight. In the Manukau report (1985), the Tribunal stated that Article 1’s kāwanatanga was something less than sovereignty, and Article 2’s tino rangatiratanga was something more than a simple property right. It followed, too, that Māori were not just one minority among others.

Notably, the Tribunal maintained that the Treaty “was not intended to merely fossilise a status quo, but to provide direction for future growth and development”. One consequence of this was that in the 1980s, the Crown was obliged to protect te reo Māori, even though its endangerment had not been foreseen in 1840 (and that taonga were intangible as well as tangible).

Jim McAloon, Professor of History at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, provides a summary of the history of the Waitangi Tribunal.

WHAT CHANGED THINGS WAS THE APPOINTMENT, IN 1980, OF EDWARD TAIHAKUREI DURIE AS THE FIRST MĀORI CHIEF JUDGE OF THE MĀORI LAND COURT.

Jim McAloon

In 1985 the fourth Labour government gave the Tribunal power to inquire into grievances extending back to 6 February 1840. Matiu Rata left Labour in 1980 and established a new Mana Motuhake party, and although it had little electoral success, it posed a challenge to Rata’s old party. More widely, the climate of protest continued. Apart from anything else, Geoffrey Palmer and Koro Wetere – Minister of Justice and Māori Affairs, respectively – believed the amendment was essential to resolve historical grievances.

THE TRIBUNAL MAINTAINED THAT

and excluded iwi and hapū. The Tribunal found that Māori had never handed over control of the fishery and that the Treaty guarantee is of fisheries as a tribal property – it is not enough to say that individual Māori may fish commercially –and that fisheries included the right to develop the fishery.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS A LONG ROAD AHEAD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ENSURED THAT THE TREATY IS NO LONGER REGARDED AS A RELIC OR MERE SYMBOL.

In Ngāi Tahu, the claim was that in the ‘purchases’ between 1844 and 1864, the Crown had not kept its side of the bargain. It had not provided the reserves on the scale Ngāi Tahu had expected, instead imposing small areas that allowed a bare subsistence. The cash prices were derisory. Ngāi Tahu were progressively denied access to natural resources, mahinga kai. Again, the claim was upheld and, as was becoming usual, iwi and Crown negotiated a settlement.

None of the negotiations between iwi and Crown were straightforward, and some since the 1990s have taken an inordinately long time. Tribunal reports since the 1990s have opened up an understanding of historical and contemporary issues, as well as extending the analyses of those earlier reports. Although there is a long road ahead, the Tribunal has ensured that the Treaty is no longer regarded as a relic or mere symbol.

Orākei – the site of the long Bastion Point occupation in 1977-78 – was the first historic case. The state had failed to protect Ngāti Whātua ownership of the lands they had wanted to keep and had indeed done things calculated to undermine that ownership. Orākei was quickly followed by Muriwhenua Fishing and by Ngāi Tahu.

Muriwhenua – five iwi of the far north – claimed that the Crown had presumed to manage and regulate the fishery. The new Quota Management System effectively created property rights in the fishery

Tribunal reports featured this cover design by Cliff Whiting, “invoking the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequent development of Māori-Pākehā history interwoven in Aotearoa, in a pattern not yet completely known, still unfolding. Reproduced by courtesy of the Waitangi Tribunal.

THE TREATY “WAS NOT INTENDED TO MERELY FOSSILISE A STATUS QUO, BUT TO PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT”.

Matiu Rata. Evening post (Newspaper. 1865-2002): Photographic negatives and prints of the Evening Post newspaper. Ref: 1/4021374-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand.

THE STATE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE CORE STATE

This is the third of several articles that explore the findings of the recent Working in the Public Service survey by taking a deep dive look at stewardship – one of five principles in the Public Service Act 2020.

We explore whether stewardship is a magic concept that is broad in scope, has positive connotations that are hard to oppose, are rhetorically useful but impossible to assess and measure. Much of the Public Service Act description of stewardship is simply ‘old wine in new bottles’, repackaging what used to be called the capability dimension of the ownership interest. However, an examination of central agency websites suggests that stewardship is more than a big word that is conceptually ambiguous. In particular, the concepts of regulatory stewardship and policy stewardship add new dimensions to thinking and productive ‘recipes for action’ that were not addressed by the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, chief executives’ roles go beyond merely supporting their ministers to include acting independently as stewards.

Our survey struggled to operationalise the principle of stewardship

In the Working in the Public Service survey, as we discussed in the last edition, we focused on five principles: political neutrality, free and frank advice, merit-based appointments, open government, as well as stewardship. The survey focused on employees’ perceptions of how these public service principles are operating in practice.

Defining stewardship for the survey proved particularly problematic. The survey questions on the stewardship principle focused on the tension between short-term priorities and longer-term imperatives. The definition used in the survey was “Stewardship is maintaining and enhancing the capability

Derek Gill

to think, plan and manage in the interests of the citizens and governments of the future. It includes knowledge, human capital, physical and financial resources, and keeping legislation up to date”. This drew on the Public Service Act 2020, which describes stewardship using five dot points detailed below, covering people, knowledge, systems, assets, and legislation.

The ambiguity around the meaning of stewardship was reflected in the range of views among respondents. The graph below shows that slightly more respondents felt that their agency finds the right balance between short-term priorities and longerterm progress and stewardship (53 percent agreed; 39 percent disagreed; 4 percent didn’t know).

By contrast, looking at their own work, more respondents disagreed than agreed statement that, in their job, they can usually devote enough time to longer-term

Source: BusinessDesk / IPANZ research

By contrast, looking at their own work, more respondents disagreed than agreed with the statement that, in their job, they can usually devote enough time to longer-term matters rather than just short-term issues (52 percent disagreed, 45 percent agreed, 4 percent didn’t know).

By contrast, looking at their own work, more respondents disagreed than agreed with the statement that, in their job, they can usually devote enough time to longer-term matters rather than just short-term issues (52 percent disagreed, 45 percent agreed, 4 percent didn’t know).

into the public administration literature in the last decade. Interestingly, the State Service Commission’s (SSC) 1995 Public Service Principles, Conventions and Practice: Guidance series explicitly refers to public servants’ stewardship role. “Public servants are required to use resources efficiently, effectively and economically (State Sector Act 1988, s32) and to account publicly for their stewardship as prescribed in the Public Finance Act 1989.”

However, this usage was not widespread until it was adopted into the State Sector Act in 2013. Stewardship has now also been adopted in the legislation for the public service of Australia as well as the code of conduct in Canada.

The New Zealand Public Service Act 2020 lists the resources that need stewardship as “including—

i. its long-term capability and its people; and

ii. its institutional knowledge and information; and

iii. its systems and processes; and

iv. its assets; and

Source: BusinessDesk / IPANZ research

Respondents were also spilt about whether central government agencies in 2022 are better at longer-term stewardship than they were in the past (28 percent agreed; 34 percent disagreed; 38 percent didn’t know).

Respondents were also spilt about whether central government agencies in 2022 are better at longer-term stewardship than they were in the past (28 percent agreed; 34 percent disagreed; 38 percent didn’t know).

v. the legislation administered by agencies.”

While the Act leaves stewardship undefined, the Public Service Commission’s website provides various overlapping explanations, including an emphasis on fiduciary issues, “acting as stewards or caretakers for a resource that belongs to or exists for the benefit of others”, where resources paraphrase the Public Service Act’s five points above. The website also suggests that stewardship involves public servants “taking active steps” and, in some cases, even acting independently of ministers.

The Cabinet Manual has been amended and updated to reflect the legislative regime applying to the public service. It now discusses chief executives and their agency’s stewardship role and the need for ministers to accept stewardship advice from an agency chief executive. It is silent, however, on the minister having any stewardship role. For example, on legislation, the minister’s role is limited to the introduction of new laws – a set-and-forget approach – with no mention of a responsibility for oversight of the stock of existing primary and secondary legislation.

Source: BusinessDesk / IPANZ research

Stewardship as a magical concept?

Stewardship is an old word but is a relatively new term in public management

Stewardship is an old word but is a relaFvely new term in public management.

Rodney Scott and Eleanor Merton, in a comprehensive background paper on the Public Service Commission website, note, “The term steward is generally thought to be derived from the Proto-Germanic stiġ weard, to refer to a domestic servant (weard) who maintains a house or hall (stiġ).” Stewardship as a general public management concept is more recent. Stewardship theory in management can be traced back to 1997 and first came

Rodney Scott and Eleanor Merton, in a comprehensive background paper on the Public Service Commission website, note that, “The term steward is generally thought to be derived from the Proto-Germanic stiġ weard, to refer to a domestic servant (weard) who maintains a house or hall (stiġ)”. Stewardship as a general public management concept is more recent. Stewardship theory in management can be traced back to 1997, and first came into the public administration literature in the last decade. Interestingly the State Service Commission (SSC)’s 1995 Public Service Principles, Conven7ons and Prac7ce: Guidance series explicitly refers to public servant’s stewardship role. “Public servants are required to use resources efficiently, effectively and economically (State Sector Act 1988, s32) and to account publicly for their stewardship as prescribed in the Public Finance Act 1989.”

Christopher Pollitt – one of the world’s leading thinkers on public management – defined the term ‘magic concept’ to cover big words which are conceptually ambiguous. Stewardship has many of the characteristics of a magic concept. Magic concepts in public administration are “very broad, normatively charged and lay claim to universal or near universal-application” (Pollitt and Hupe, 2011, p.643). They outline four characteristics of a magic concept in public administration using the terms governance and accountability as examples:

1. Broadness: they are widely applicable and have a wide scope.

2. Normative attractiveness: overwhelmingly positive connotations, it is hard to argue against them.

3. The implication of consensus: they obscure conflicting interests and logic.

4. Marketability: the concept is known and used by practitioners and academics, frequently appearing in communications material and referred to as solutions.

On the face of it, stewardship, much like the terms ‘governance’, and ‘accountability’, has many of the characteristics of a magic concept: broad in scope, positive connotations that are hard to oppose and rhetorically useful.

Old wine in new bottles? Comparing the ownership interest and stewardship

Another critical perspective on stewardship is a reflection on how it differs from the concept of the ownership interest, which underpinned the New Zealand public sector management reforms. Specifically, the reforms in the State Sector Act 1988 and the Public Finance Act 1989 embodied the separation between the government’s purchase interest in the delivery of services (outputs) from the ownership interest in any public agencies that might deliver those services. The purchase interest was more readily and sharply defined than the ownership interest, while the government’s interest in regulation wasn’t addressed at all.

Researchers have looked into the question of whether stewardship is a magic concept. Marsh et al., looking from an Australian perspective, find stewardship has “many characteristics” of a ‘magic’ concept. Rosalind Coote, in her forthcoming Doctor of Government thesis, concludes that in a New Zealand context, it is not. The latter is on the grounds that in a range of domains, stewardship has provided ‘recipes for action’, something Pollitt and Hupe suggest magic concepts do not support. Her research examines how stewardship has been used as a framing idea for collective action in the New Zealand public service.

As part of the development of the reforms, a Chief Executive group described ownership as having four “requirements”: strategic alignment with government priorities, the integrity of the public service, assurance of future capability, and costeffectiveness over the long run (Interdepartmental Working Group on Ownership, 1995). The State Services Commissioner of the time defined capability as “…the quality, quantity, and interaction of the resources – the people, finances, and stock of knowledge – that form the fabric of any organisation; and the values, systems, structures, and leadership that bring those resources together and apply them” (Wintringham, 1998, p. 7). With the exception of regulatory stewardship of “the legislation administered by agencies”, the then Commissioner list is strikingly similar to the description of resources needing stewardship in the Public Service Act 2020.

Stewardship in action?

To explore whether stewardship in the public sector management domain has provided ‘recipes for action’ or provided a new perspective (compared to the ownership interest), I examined three central agencies websites. I limited myself to searching for the terms ‘stewardship’ and ‘ownership interest’ to see what I could locate. Stewardship is the new ‘it’

MUCH OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT’S DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES THAT NEED STEWARDSHIP IS SIMPLY ‘OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES’.

word. The question being addressed was the counterfactual history question: if the concept of ‘stewardship’ had not replaced ‘the ownership interest’ in central agency jargon, what would be different?

THE CONCEPTS OF

REGULATORY STEWARDSHIP

AND POLICY STEWARDSHIP ADD … PRODUCTIVE

FOR ACTION’ THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE REFORMS OF THE 1980s AND 1990s.

The Treasury’s website is focused on regulatory stewardship. The term ‘ownership interest’ yielded 248 hits, but most of these were from previous decades before 2017. ‘Stewardship’ gets a similar number of hits (288), but all are much more recent. ‘Regulatory stewardship’, i.e. the proactive and collaborative governance, monitoring and care of New Zealand’s regulatory systems, gets fewer hits (162), but that identified a large body of well-developed supporting material, including government expectations, a resource document, guidance on Regulatory reporting, and the Secretary to the Treasury role as the functional lead. Regulatory stewards promote “better regulation”, an agenda long promoted by the OECD, in a new way, starting with the idea that regulatory systems should be seen as assets needing to be actively stewarded rather than predominantly liabilities or obstacles to business. Clearly, regulatory stewardship has provided ‘recipes for action’ and added a new dimension to the ownership interest not covered by the reforms of the 1980s.

That is not to suggest that the challenges faced in regulatory stewardship have been overcome. There was little practical guidance material on the Treasury website on how to actually undertake the stewardship responsibilities. But while regulatory stewardship is still a work in progress, it is a progressive research agenda. The regulation stock management tools tried in other jurisdictions (regulatory budgets, in/out rules etc.) have not proved effective. Regulatory stewardship looks to be a more productive line of inquiry for tackling the set-and-forget problem in regulation.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s website is focused on policy stewardship. The term ‘ownership interest’ yielded just 4 hits and 3 related to commercial Crown companies. By contrast, stewardship yielded 248

2023 - Uncertainty can lead to opportunity!

A change of Labour leader, a cost of living crisis, budget allocations in a fiscally constrained environment, a pending election and changes of direction on key government programmes all add up to a lot to be thinking about for public sector leaders as they consider their resourcing requirements through the second half of 2023. Some are shedding contractors and reallocating existing permanent resources as programmes are stalled or pulled. Others require more contract resources as cyclone recovery initiatives kick in, or to backfill for seconded staff. It all adds up to a bit of a roller coaster ride in the recruitment market with a proliferation of short-term contracts and less certainty around roll overs.

Uncertainty can lead to opportunity and if you are considering a move into, or out of contracting or just thinking about what your next permanent career move could look like it’s a good time to be talking to us!

To have a confidential chat about your options contact Shane Mackay or Gemma Odams - 04 4999471 Email: shane.mackay@h2r.co.nz or gemma.odams@h2r.co.nz

100% NZ Owned and Operated

Shane Mackay

Gemma Odams

‘RECIPES

ON THE FACE OF IT STEWARDSHIP, MUCH LIKE THE TERMS

‘GOVERNANCE’, AND ‘ACCOUNTABILITY,’ HAS MANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A MAGIC CONCEPT: BROAD IN SCOPE, POSITIVE CONNOTATIONS THAT ARE HARD TO OPPOSE AND RHETORICALLY USEFUL.

hits, mainly focused on policy stewardship. This reflects their role as functional leaders of policy and leaders of the policy profession. The Public Service Act introduced a new requirement for departmental chief executives to publish a long-term insights briefing at least once every three years, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) coordinated the development of these. There was a wealth of guidance material on the DPMC website to support the development of these briefings. So, like the Treasury on regulatory stewardship, for DPMC, the concept of policy stewardship has provided ‘recipes for action’.

The Public Services Commission’s website coverage focused on policy and system stewardship.

The term ‘ownership interest’ yielded 9 passing references –the term didn’t even warrant a definition in the glossary of key terms. This low count may reflect that a range of material from the former SSC website, including the Occasional Paper series, has not been carried over to the new PSC website.

By contrast, ‘stewardship’ yielded 43 hits. While a number of the links focused on policy stewardship, there was also an inaugural State of the Public Service Report, the PSC’s first Long-Term Insights Briefing on consultation as well as a detailed research paper exploring the concept of stewardship. Stewardship was also listed as one of five core principles in the Leadership Success Profile. In the past, the precursor to the PSC undertook Performance Improvement Framework reviews, assessing the organisation’s capability to address emerging challenges. I looked in vain on the website for insights about how the PSC was going to define, measure, and assess how chief executives “are promoting stewardship of the public service, in particular, its long-term capability” as required by Schedule 3 S 16 4) (iii) of the Public Service Act. This may reflect that material is still under development, such as a revision to the Code of Conduct to incorporate the new principles or be in use but not included on the website.

Outside of the Insights Briefings and State of the Public Service Report, it wasn’t clear how much stewardship has acted as a recipe for action in the PSC. The State of the Public Service Report risks falling into the classic trap of performance reporting, which is the tendency to want to tell a positive performance story. The first report had high production values, few critical comments, and lots of good news stories.

Final thoughts

This article has focused on stewardship in the public management domain. We have not examined how stewardship has been applied in other domains, such as the digital space where the Government Statistician is the Chief Data Steward with powers under the Data and Statistics Act 2022. Much of the Public Service Act’s description of the resources that need stewardship is simply ‘old wine in new bottles’, repackaging and reframing what used to be termed the capability dimension of the ownership interest. It is unclear

how any systematic assessment of long-term capability will be undertaken. However, the notions of regulatory stewardship and policy stewardship are productive lines of inquiry that have added a new dimension to the thinking on issues not adequately covered by the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, it addresses a gap by clarifying that chief executives’ roles go beyond supporting their ministers to include acting independently as stewards.

Derek Gill is an IPANZ Board member, and a research fellow at the VUW’s Institute of Governance and Policy Studies. Derek is a pracademic who combines wide-ranging experience as a public service leader in the Public Service Commission, the Treasury, and MSD / Child Youth and Family with teaching and researching public management in New Zealand. Derek’s involvement in the implementation of the Better Public Services reform directly contributed to the inclusion of stewardship in the 2013 amendments to the State Sector Act. The views expressed are the author’s personal take and not the views of any particular organisation.

FURTHER READING

Ayto, Jonathan. (2014) “Why Departments Need to Be Regulatory Stewards.” Policy Quarterly 10, no. 4 : 23–27. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v10i4.4506

Scott, Rodney and Eleanor Merton. (2021) “Stewardship streams in New Zealand public administration” https://www. publicservice.govt.nz/assets/Stewardship-streams-in-NewZealand-public-administration.pdf

K., Marsh, D., Dickinson, H., & Carey, G. (2017). Is all stewardship equal? Developing a typology of stewardship approaches. Canberra: University of New South Wales Canberra Public Service Research Group. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/node/303220

van der Heijden, J. (2021). Regulatory stewardship: the challenge of joining a virtue and a mechanism. Policy Quarterly (17), 57-63. doi: 10.26686/pq.v17i1.6731

It won’t print money.

But with a right fit fleet it could save some.

BAIL SUPPORT OFFICER

Liam Russell writes about little-known public sector jobs – highlighting their responsibilities, importance, and the people behind the mahi. In this issue, he writes about Bail Support Officers (BSOs) and their essential role in helping to improve outcomes in the criminal justice system.

Imagine, just for a moment, being plucked from your day-to-day life with little notice. Maybe you know this is because you have done something wrong or harmed another person, but maybe you don’t have any idea why this is happening. You are taken somewhere unfamiliar, and held there without any autonomy over basic decisions like when you will eat and where you will sleep. A month later, with little warning, you are dropped back into society with only the clothes on your back, whatever possessions you have in your pockets, and a list of complicated rules that if not followed, might result in you being plucked from the community once more. You’re given a name and number for somebody who is supposed to help you, but they have a hundred more people like you to look after and a long list of other jobs to do. What would you do if this happened to you?

Most of us would be disoriented at best. Many would struggle to get their bearings without the support of friends and whānau or without some money in the bank. If you had vanished from your day-to-day life for a month, your job is probably not still there waiting for you to return – and neither your housing.

This is an unfortunate reality for many New Zealanders who are held in custody. Even for people who know they have been violent or harmed others, the experience of disorientation and confusion arising from being arrested and being charged with a crime, and of not knowing who to turn to can bring out overwhelming feelings of helplessness and whakamā (shame). In many cases, the people who are in these situations are – through a combination of factors such as disadvantaged upbringings, low literacy or learning difficulties, acquired brain injuries, and mental illness – unable to understand what is happening or what is expected of them, and may not have people around them to help them back on their feet and follow the rules.

Bail Support Services is one of the initiatives helping to address these challenges and provides dedicated resources to help individuals access the tools and support they need to get back on their feet, and to understand and follow the conditions set by the courts while on bail. This is not to disregard the impact that offending has on victims and their whānau and communities, but without intervention, the repeating cycle of more charges and more victims will remain too common in our criminal justice system.

I spoke with Shalom Paulo Rimoni, a Senior BSO based in Tāmaki Makaurau, to hear more about this kaupapa and his daily mahi.

What is Bail Support Services?

Formed initially in Wellington as a pilot programme to reduce the high remand prison population (people in custody awaiting trial), the Bail Support Service now operates in ten locations across the motu with plans to expand nationwide by June 2024.

The service supports individuals to make bail accessible, understandable, and sustainable by connecting suitable individuals with potential addresses and helping them to apply for bail, and to access programmes and services in the community. In addition, the service helps individuals to understand what is expected of them while on bail and helps to prevent further offending or breaches of bail conditions. The service also allows the courts to have the best information about safe and timely bail proposals, and to have information on the individual’s performance while on bail when sentenced.

Bail Support Services is funded through the High Impact Innovation Programme (HIIP) – a joint venture led by Ara Poutama Aotearoa (Department of Corrections) and supported by other justice sector partners.

What does a Bail Support Officer do?

“It’s all about giving individuals the tools and support to succeed,” says Shalom.

Liam Russell

Senior Bail Support Officer, Shalom Paulo Rimoni (Photo supplied)

Working alongside the defendants, their whānau, and supporters, Shalom and his colleagues collaborate with other government agencies and community organisations to support individuals to achieve and sustain bail. Their goals are to reduce time on remand, help individuals understand and comply with their bail conditions and improve sentencing outcomes.

“Bail Support Officers work really hard to help people safely achieve bail, understand their conditions, and connect with the support they need in the community. People enrolled in Bail Support Services are 32 percent less likely to be charged for offending while remanded on bail, compared to people not enrolled in Bail Support Services.”

Leigh Marsh, National Commissioner, Ara Poutama Aotearoa (Department of Corrections)

Out and about in prisons, courts and communities

BSOs regularly visit prisons and work with newly remanded people and their lawyers to start the bail process. BSOs are also based at courts – meeting with newly arrested individuals at their first court hearing to gather information and help the judge to make a timely and informed decision on granting bail.

If bail is granted, the BSO will visit the individuals at their new address to give an induction, helping them to understand their bail conditions and connecting with whānau and other people living at the address to make a plan. This plan could include connecting the individual with programmes or services in the community.

No two days are the same

It takes a person who can think on their feet to thrive in this dynamic and fast-paced role. Shalom, like many of his colleagues, comes from a social work background and is used to the pace. Others in his team have worked in probation, NGOs and community groups, and other justice sector agencies.

“It’s flat out, but I love that it keeps me on my toes,” says Shalom. “It’s great to be able to change up your work environment – from court, to prison visits, and out in the community.”

Offering timely support

“We try and help people achieve bail as soon as possible, and we aim to visit the proposed address and prepare a suitability report for the court on the same day,” says Shalom. “The quicker somebody can be granted bail, the less likely it is that they will lose their job or home due to imprisonment, reducing the chances of a longer-term impact on their life.”

The efforts by Shalom and his team are paying dividends. Before this pilot programme, it took on average 28 days for a defendant to be granted bail. Now, that figure is 21 days, reducing the number of case adjournments and pressure on the courts, as well as the number of nights behind bars for the 75 percent of prisoners who do eventually achieve bail.

Humanising the criminal justice process

Shalom and his team spend a lot of time speaking to defendants and their whānau, not only about how bail works and what the rules are, but about their personal circumstances, what assistance they need (like financial support, child visitation, or housing), and what they can do while on bail to help address some of the underlying issues behind their offending (i.e. drug and alcohol treatment programmes, counselling, or driving courses).

“We take a holistic and whānau-centric approach supporting people in our care,” says Shalom. “At the end of the day, they are humans too, and it can reframe their experience that Corrections is not just about keeping people in prisons, but about helping them with their rehabilitation.”

Improving outcomes

The work of BSOs like Shalom is integral to reducing reoffending. On top of Bail Support’s help, BSOs also provide reports to the court at sentencing, which detail the positive steps taken by defendants while on bail.

“We put a lot of effort into acknowledging when a defendant has taken steps to address the issues behind their offending. We want to make sure that their hard work is recognised by the court. It gives defendants a chance to prove to the judge, and to their community, that they are committed to doing better.

“Small changes are cumulative, and what might seem like a small change in our view may be life-changing for someone else.”

A review of the pilot revealed that people who participated in the Bail Support programme were less likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment and that the programme led to 377 fewer people behind bars in its first year of operation.

“The most crucial – and most enjoyable – part of my role is getting to meet defendants and their whānau out in their communities, being able to understand their situation, and help to give them an opportunity to change their path. Being able to open doors for better choices, especially for youth who are feeling lost or trying to understand the world, and to hear that you made a difference is so rewarding.”

Liam Russell is co-chair of the IPANZ New Professionals leadership team and a member of the IPANZ Board.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer or any other organisation, group, or individual.

OPERATING IN A POLITICAL SYSTEM WITHOUT OPERATING POLITICALLY NAVIGATING PONEKETANGA HE MARANGAI MĀ E TE PONEKETANGA

Kate Butler, Solicitor at Russell McVeagh, brings together some insights about political nous following a series of events hosted by IPANZ and the Australia New Zealand School of Government.

Sir Robert Armstrong, former UK Cabinet Secretary, once wrote that the public service “has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly elected Government of the day”.

While Sir Robert is undoubtedly correct, his assertion raises an important question; how should public servants, bound by the convention of political neutrality, effectively serve political governments?

This question – of exercising political nous as a public servant – formed the subject of a series of events hosted by IPANZ and the Australia New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) titled Ministers and officials: Getting the relationship right. Speakers at these events were Deb Te Kawa (independent consultant specialising in governance, public policy, and change management), Steven Sutton (Special Counsel in Russell McVeagh’s

Government, Competition and Regulatory practice group), Paul James (Secretary for Internal Affairs), Tory Whanau (Mayor of Wellington), and Mike Munro (Director of Munro Church Communications).

The series, with events targeted both at new professionals specifically, and more senior public servants, focused on navigating the relationship with ministers and their offices, developing political nous, and understanding the politics without getting involved in the politics.

What is political nous?

One analogy that was used was that political nous is about having the courage to walk through water without getting wet, but being smart enough to know that is impossible.

Our speakers all agreed that political nous is the ability to understand the political

environment that ministers operate in. When asked what ‘good’ political nous looks like, they reflected several key elements:

• Customer centricity and understanding your minister(s), including the roles they play outside service as a minister (e.g. party, electorate, community, family), and influences on their decision-making (their philosophies, and their trusted advisors).

• Working with others and leading with influence (not authority), as those with poor relationship management rarely succeed.

• Understanding your own brief and the context within which it sits.

• Understanding your role, including the boundaries of free and frank advice, and what is within and outside your scope of responsibility.

Political nous for new professionals

New professionals are often at the flax roots on policy advice, with limited access to ministers and the political sphere. Advice to those starting out in their careers is to be curious – immerse yourself in the world of the public service and politics, follow the debates and the genesis of policies, and familiarise yourself with resources like the Cabinet Manual, the Public Service Code of Conduct, and the Policy Project. After all, political nous is developed through a ‘political upbringing’, the result of exposure to political conversations and considerations.

The changing political landscape and political nous

One of the critical reflections from this series is that the political landscape is changing in several ways. The rise in social media has allowed politicians to be better connected to constituents and voters, the pace and urgency of decision-making has escalated, the number of ‘decision points’ has increased in the policy process, and politics is becoming increasingly volatile. Notably, social media’s ability to derail informed and reasoned dialogue impedes a minister’s ability to make decisions that are well understood by the constituency.

This is where an understanding of political nous is integral to the effectiveness of the public service; public servants must be able to read and respond to the changing political environment in order to best serve their ministers.

Our speakers reflected that the public service is perhaps not keeping pace with the changing political environment – in particular, policies, policy channels, and stakeholder engagement avenues are lagging, which makes it difficult for the public service to deliver with political nous.

For new professionals, concern was expressed that an increasingly volatile political environment would act as a deterrent to those wishing to join the public service. The importance of sufficient support, especially when engaging with turbulent ministers’ offices (e.g. as private secretaries), should not be understated here.

One speaker reflected that the intersection between free and frank advice and political nous is at the heart of the public service. However, audience feedback noted this may be being undermined by a new understanding of political nous that seeks to tell ministers only what they want to hear. Indeed, in a 2022 survey of public servants by IPANZ and BusinessDesk, only two-thirds of respondents believed free and frank advice could be given without worrying about the popularity of that advice within their organisation or the government. [Ed – for more information about this survey and its results, please see the article on page 3.] This was less likely to be the case for junior public servants.

What are the lessons for public servants?

The political landscape is evolving, and both senior and junior public servants must be able to adapt.

For senior public servants, this could look like fresh consideration of the efficacy

of policy channels and stakeholder engagement, to ensure they are fit for purpose and best serving ministers as key customers. Open dialogue with ministers around free and frank advice (what is coming to them, how they’d like to receive it, and clear expectations around policy consequences) will also be advantageous here.

New professionals provided a series of ‘asks’ at their event, to assist in developing political nous. These include building consistent political nous into induction and professional development across government organisations, having insights passed on after meetings with ministers and senior leadership, and sitting in on ministerial meetings, where possible.

POLITICAL NOUS IS

Public servants operate in a unique environment, where they must navigate, respond to, and evolve with a political environment, all without participating in it.

To use the terms of Rob Shepherd, quoted in Politics and the Civil Service – Is the Age of Neutrality Over? how well political servants can be “political chameleons”, without becoming “political animals”, is the art of political nous.

Kate Butler is a solicitor in the Government, Competition and Regulatory practice group at Russell McVeagh, specialising in public law and policy. She is also a former advisor to several Members of Parliament.

…HOW WELL POLITICAL SERVANTS CAN BE “POLITICAL CHAMELEONS”, WITHOUT BECOMING “POLITICAL ANIMALS”, IS THE ART OF POLITICAL NOUS.

ABOUT HAVING THE COURAGE TO WALK THROUGH WATER WITHOUT GETTING WET, BUT BEING SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

RESOLVING CONFLICT FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

Trisha Harrison-Hunt (Ngāti Porou) absolutely loves the work she does.

“I love helping people find a resolution that allows them to move forward, at the same time hold onto their mana, their dignity. I have many examples of people who come in stressed and anxious, who feel they have not been treated well by each other, then when their issues are resolved, say they wish they had come to mediation earlier,” says Trisha.

“To be the best I can for both parties is my aim every time I meet in mediation”, she says. “It’s the essence of what the public service is about.”

Trisha has specialised in employment dispute resolution for the past 16 years. Previously, she worked for 25 years in trade unions, for 12 of them as a Takawaenga (Māori field officer) for NZEI Te Riu Roa.

“This was unique in that both principals and teachers were our members. That was good grounding for me to understand both sides of a story.”

Trisha decided that employment mediation was a good transition from this work, so in 2007, she became an accredited mediator with the Resolution Institute and moved to MBIE. “And while I didn’t have a legal background, I did bring experience with the Employment Relations Act (and its previous iterations), plus a range of life skills to the role,” she says.

“I am a mother of five and have eleven grandchildren. I have always worked in the Māori community, that is important to me. And from early in my life, I have been elevated to leadership roles, so I just have that innate sense that I need to assist or help people.”

Resolution through mediation, according to the Employment Relations Act, is the first option for settlement of an employment dispute. If cases are not resolved, they advance to the Employment Relations Authority, then the Employment Court. “The legislation deliberately established mediation to forgo a formal process. Often people lodge a claim direct to the Authority, and they’ll be directed back to us,” says Trisha.

“The key components of our work are that we’re independent, neutral, and impartial. We are here to assist employers and employees with resolving employment problems in a confidential, non-prejudiced environment.” Formal process aside, both parties need to understand that we have a set procedure to follow in order to get to a resolution, she adds.

“First, we do pre-mediation with each of the parties. We have a separate conversation, and for me, that’s important; it’s a good time to engage as a person. Then we move into ‘what are your needs, what are the things I can support you with’ in my capacity as an independent, impartial person.

“Essentially, I’m there to assist parties to get a good result by encouraging them to have respectful conversations with each other. Some people come into mediation extremely hurt; they want to yell and scream.”

“The number one strength for a mediator is empathy, and I mean empathy with both parties”, she says. “I like to take them back to when their employment relationship began, then move to establish why things changed. We spend time discussing the relationship breakup, and then I will move the focus to looking at options for resolution.

Empathy, impartiality and embracing a Māori worldview are guiding principles for MBIE Kaiwhakatau Take Matua, Senior Employment Mediator, Trisha Harrison-Hunt. Kathy Ombler finds out more.

“SOME PEOPLE COME INTO MEDIATION EXTREMELY HURT; THEY WANT TO YELL AND SCREAM. I’M THERE TO ASSIST PARTIES TO GET A GOOD RESULT BY ENCOURAGING THEM TO HAVE RESPECTFUL CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER.”

“Most parties come to mediation with their position, and what they want to achieve from the process, set in their mind. I see my role as engaging them to work towards a resolution that satisfies both parties’ expectations,” she says.

Excellent listening skills are also required. “About ninety percent of the work that I do is about connecting with people. Also, you need to have confidence. The people come into the room with a lot of stress; they need to know the person in front of them knows what they are doing.”

expectations for both parties to be open and transparent. This aligns with most peoples’ values and are significant for Māori values such as manaakitanga (taking care of each other), kotahitanga (collaboration) and mātauranga (knowledge).”

Working with a whānau-centred approach became particularly important for Trisha during a three-year secondment with Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, Te Pūtahitanga ō te Waipounamu.

Understanding employment law is desirable. “As a mediator, you might have to provide an opinion on the potential risks of being unable to settle, and what the process might look like if it is elevated to the Employment Relations Authority. The most important thing is that while we can advise, the parties are the final decision makers.”

Holding firm to principles can be problematic. “A principle can play a part in resolution, but can also escalate an employment relationship problem to the point it isn’t settled. I try to acknowledge the principled view a party has, at the same time encourage them to consider what it might mean for the other party and ask a range of questions to explore the issue and find options.

“Finding a solution does mean, in most situations, that both parties need to move from their initial positions.”

For all the qualities required for mediation work, it is working with a Māori worldview that Trisha holds dearest. “If you look at Māori values, they align with the Employment Relations Act, especially in relation to ‘Good Faith’ requirements that include

“It was not about putting forward what we think is best for the whānau; it was about working with the whānau on their needs. This aligns well with mediation, and I took a lot of learnings from that when I came back to MBIE.”

Trisha is currently one of a team of kaitautoko, training Disputes Resolution staff as part of MBIE’s Te ao Māori cultural competency programme.

“My role is to encourage my colleagues starting a mediation case to understand where their parties come from and what cultural needs they have. Some people like to have a mediator who is experienced in tikanga. Some might like to start with a karakia.

“We also support our colleagues with the pronunciation of te reo, understanding how to pronounce people’s names and what their names mean, so they can engage in a positive way. This programme is part of our responsibility as a Treaty partner.”

“Māori values run in line with everything I believe in,” says Trisha. “Manaakitanga is very important to me, and if you break that down you have manaaki, which is about ensuring the mana of others, before your own. So it’s about lifting the mana of others, whoever you’re engaging with. In mediation, if someone has just shared a difficult but important part of their life, you’ll hear me say, ‘I want to acknowledge you for sharing that with me’. It can be difficult to share with someone they’ve just met, but that sharing does provide me with a greater understanding.”

Whakawhānaungatanga, establishing relationships, is also essential. “Where are you from? Where am I from? It doesn’t matter if people are Māori or not. I will say, talk to me about your family. And it doesn’t always have to relate to the issues on the table, but I have learned it can be a really insightful way to connect, across both parties.”

Making connections applies across all cultures, she adds. “I work with many different cultures. I always make sure I get people's names correct and try to observe any cultural ways or differences in how people communicate.

“Honour the Treaty, recognise diversity, both are really important. Conflict resolution is about making it as easy as possible for all parties to participate, no matter who you are, where you’re from or what you do. That’s our responsibility.”

FOR ALL THE QUALITIES REQUIRED FOR MEDIATION WORK, IT IS WORKING WITH A MĀORI WORLDVIEW THAT TRISHA HOLDS DEAREST… “MANAAKITANGA (TAKING CARE OF EACH OTHER), KOTAHITANGA (COLLABORATION) AND MĀTAURANGA (KNOWLEDGE)”.

“CONFLICT RESOLUTION IS ABOUT MAKING IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR ALL PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, WHERE YOU’RE FROM OR WHAT YOU DO. THAT’S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.”

AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND'S TURNING POINT: OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR A NET-ZERO FUTURE

From legislating emissions targets to setting emissions budgets, New Zealand’s commitment to reducing emissions is world-leading in many ways. Nonetheless, there is more to do. This Deloitte report looks at two scenarios and the bold steps required to make a difference.

New Zealand will have to take several steps to successfully transition to a low carbon economy and contribute to international climate targets aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.

If New Zealand and the world achieve stated climate targets, our new research shows New Zealand’s economy could be $64 billion larger by 2050. In contrast, if global temperatures are allowed to rise 3°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, New Zealand’s economy could be $4.4 billion smaller by 2050 and $48 billion smaller by 2070.

The sixth report in a series of global Deloitte Turning Point reports, our New Zealand edition shows the impact two distinct pathways – inadequate action and decisive action on climate change – could have on New Zealand’s economy and sectors such as agriculture, energy, construction, manufacturing, and tourism. Moreover, our report illustrates when the benefits of decisive climate action could start to outweigh the upfront costs of rapid decarbonisation – New Zealand’s turning point.

These benefits are not guaranteed. To achieve these potential gains, a change in mindset is required. Clear and consistent policy direction on climate change and support from both government and the private sector to transition New Zealand’s economy to a low carbon one is crucial.

Many economic projections don’t account for climate change

Despite clear and growing evidence of the costs of climate change on the world’s economy, many economic projections still assume the global economy can continue to grow the way it traditionally has, completely unaffected by the negative economic impacts of climate change.

Scientific evidence tells us the relationship between increasing emissions and economic growth cannot continue as it has done, and the costs of climate change must be reflected in how decisionmakers evaluate their choices.

Our modelling accounts for the effects of climate change

In our modelling, we explicitly take into account the economic costs of climate change and rising global temperatures. Our modelling combines physical damages and economic activity, allowing us to quantify the impact climate change could have on New Zealand’s economy and the sectors within it if left unchecked. The fundamental driver of the economic costs of climate change in our modelling is rising temperatures. As rising temperature induces climate change, economic output (as measured by GDP) is impacted by the physical damages that affect productivity and/or the stock of production factors.

Scenario one: Inadequate action

This scenario presents a future with a high rate of global GHG emissions, where current technologies and strategies reduce GHG emissions and stabilise the temperature increase at around 2°C by 2050 and 3°C by 2100. The modelling for this scenario reflects a widely adopted set of emissions, economic and population assumptions, referred to as SSP2-4.5.

by GDP) is impacted by the physical damages that affect productivity and/or the stock of production factors.

If New Zealand and the world take inadequate action, the country’s economy could lose nearly $4.4 billion of GDP between 2023 and 2050. By 2070, the losses could escalate to $48 billion. At the same time, there could be nearly 3,000 fewer job opportunities by 2050 due to the economic impacts of climate change. These negative impacts are in comparison to a world where the impacts of climate change are assumed to have no cost.

Figure 1: Two-stage economic damages rela6onships

Scenario one: inadequate ac.on

This scenario presents a future with a high rate of global GHG emissions, where

Figure 1: Two-stage economic damages relationships

The estimates described here are conservative. There are a range of impacts we have not explicitly modelled, such as the impact of individual natural disasters and extreme events, water availability and ocean acidification.

In a world with inadequate action and rising global temperatures, New Zealand’s temperate climate means some industries will be relatively insulated while others bear the costs of inadequate action more acutely.

For example, trade, manufacturing, and services will be worse off, reflecting the toll increasing temperatures have on people, land, and physical infrastructure in New Zealand and across the world. Overall, the broader New Zealand economy will suffer as a result of inadequate action.

No action is not a choice for New Zealand. If no change is made and New Zealand falls behind, key exports could be impacted as trading partners commit to net zero targets and start to focus on the sustainability of their imports.

Scenario two: Decisive action

Against a scenario of inadequate action, we have modelled a scenario where governments, businesses, and citizens around the world take decisive action to limit global warming to as close to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels as possible. The results of decisive global action are presented as a deviation (the green line). Decisive action reflects a widely adopted set of emissions, economic and population assumptions, referred to as SSP1-1.9.

New Zealand’s relatively large mix of pre-existing renewable energy means, in a scenario of global decisive action, it is one of the first economies to reach its turning point. This means that many sectors could transition off fossil fuel sources of energy faster than their international counterparts, thus avoiding the increasing cost of emissions these energy sources attract. This gives these sectors an advantage and could boost their contribution to GDP and employment while the rest of the world continues to decarbonise.

The reduction of biogenic methane emissions is a fundamental driver of New Zealand’s decarbonisation in this scenario. Under decisive action, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions reduce by 75 percent in total by 2050 compared to 2022. This reduction depends on the successful adoption of new and emerging technologies.

Bold plays required

To achieve the potential gains, our research estimates New Zealand will have to engage in several bold plays to successfully transition to a low carbon economy and reap the potential benefits:

• Clear and consistent policy direction from government is needed.

• Transition Assistance is crucial from government and the private sector.

• The finance sector has an important role, directing investment towards decarbonisation and climate innovation.

• Consents for investments aimed at decarbonisation should be prioritised and, if appropriate, sped up.

• Respecting Te Ao Māori. The country must value and respect the role Māori and iwi have to play, particularly concerning farming, fisheries, forestry, and geothermal holdings – in addition to understanding the impact of climate action on communities.

• The role of extractive industries in enabling new technology and innovation will be an essential consideration.

• The pricing of all emissions, including agricultural emissions, and raising its price is also a fundamental driver of change.

Final remarks

New Zealand’s turning point will occur around 2036

New Zealand’s turning point will occur around 2036

The narrative around climate action has always been one of cost. Our modelling creates a new baseline for New Zealand’s economy. By factoring in these costs, we demonstrate the significant economic opportunities of taking decisive action, as well as the economic harms of inadequate action to the country’s economy.

It gets tough before it gets better. Transitioning the economy off fossil fuel sources of energy and reducing biogenic methane emissions in agriculture is costly, and GDP will be lower during this transition when compared to ‘inadequate action’. At the most costly point of New Zealand’s transition, which would occur in 2031, GDP growth is 1.3 percent lower with ‘decisive action’ when compared to the ‘inadequate action’ scenario.

It gets tough before it gets better. Transitioning the economy off fossil fuel sources of energy and reducing biogenic methane emissions in agriculture is costly, and GDP will be lower during this transition when compared to ‘inadequate action’. At the most costly point of New Zealand’s transition, which would occur in 2031, GDP growth is 1.3 percent lower with ‘decisive action’ when compared to the ‘inadequate action’ scenario.

However, if New Zealand stays on track, and picks up the pace of decarbonisation, it would be one of the first countries to reap the benefits, given our large pre-existing renewable energy mix. Even better, our modelling shows that after 2036, New Zealand’s economy could grow even more than if there is inadequate action on climate change. By 2050, New Zealand’s GDP could be 2.4 percent greater and $64 billion higher overall over 2023 to 2050 than a scenario of ‘inadequate’ action on climate change.

However, if New Zealand stays on track, and picks up the pace of decarbonisation, it would be one of the first countries to reap the benefits, given our large pre-existing renewable energy mix. Even better, our modelling shows that after 2036, New Zealand’s economy could grow even more than if there is inadequate action on climate change. By 2050, New Zealand’s GDP could be 2.4 percent greater and $64 billion higher overall over 2023 to 2050 than a scenario of inadequate action on climate change.

<Jodie, if not enough room, please delete this para>New Zealand’s relatively large mix of pre-existing renewable energy means, in a scenario of global decisive action, it is one of the first economies to reach its turning point. This means that many sectors could transition off fossil fuel sources of energy faster than their international counterparts, thus avoiding the increasing cost of emissions these energy sources attract. This gives these sectors an advantage and could boost their contribution to GDP and employment while the rest of the world continues to decarbonise.

The reduction of biogenic methane emissions is a fundamental driver of New Zealand’s decarbonisation in this scenario. Under ‘decisive action’, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions reduce by 75 percent in total by 2050 compared to 2022. This reduction depends

The benefits to New Zealand from decisive action are immense, but not a given. Several bold plays are needed to position New Zealand for rapid decarbonisation, such as through clear policy direction and targeted support from government and industry. The decisions New Zealand makes today and over the next decade are the decisions that will shape our future. We are at a turning point, and it is time for New Zealand to work together for a better future.

Deloitte New Zealand brings together more than 1,900 professionals providing audit, tax, technology and systems, strategy and performance improvement, risk management, corporate finance, business recovery, forensic and accounting services. The authors of this report are Jane Fraser-Jones, Partner, Corporate Finance, Partner David Morgan, Partner, Corporate Finance, Liza van der Merwe, Partner, Deloitte Access Economics, Mayuresh Prasad, Manager, Corporate Finance.

Figure 4: ‘Decisive’ ac6on

Figure 2: ‘Decisive’ action

INNOVATIVE IDEAS AND PRACTICES FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE

HIGHLIGHTS FOR 2023

■ Flexibility to tailor your learning to your interests, career objectives, and work–life balance

■ Places available for recent graduates

Gain a qualification in e-government, public management, or public policy from Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington; New Zealand’s leading education provider in public services. Study full time or at your own pace while you work.

Master of Public Management: Upgrade your skills and competencies for leading and managing people and resources, and for implementing innovative change and effective public services.

Master of Public Policy: Develop your skills and competencies for analysing, designing, and evaluating policy, and preparing policy advice in public and non-governmental sectors.

STUDY AT ONE OF THE WORLD’S LEADING BUSINESS SCHOOLS

Wellington School of Business and Government holds the triple crown of international accreditations.