REALISING THE POTENTIAL OF THE FIRST 2000 DAYS: A SOCIAL INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY
EMBRACING ACCOUNTABILITY: CHIEF OMBUDSMAN’S REFLECTIONS ON PUBLIC SECTOR COMPLAINTS PROCESSES
KIWIS UNDER THE LENS: AN INSIDE LOOK AT NEW ZEALAND’S SOCIAL MEDIA SURVEILLANCE
When building a team, it’s important to get three things right: People, Skills and Dynamics.
The Johnson Group has worked across the public sector since 2005. A member of the All of Government Recruitment Panel and regarded for our expertise in public sector recruitment, our consultants are specialists who understand the very specific skill sets required of public sector professionals as well as the intricacies of the Wellington market
We know our candidates well - from what drives or interests them to how they fit into your team to deliver excellent outcomes
PUBLISHER
The Institute of Public Administration
New Zealand
PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand
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
Abigail Bender
Chloe Cairncross
Stephen Clarke
Luke Collier
Jayne Foster
Derek Gill
Aimee Hadrup
Elena Higgison
Rachel Levinson-Waldman
Liz MacPherson
Zaira Najam
Kara Nepe-Apatu
John Ryan
JOURNAL ADVISORY GROUP
Barbara Allen
Kay Booth
Julia Budler
Kathy Catton
Liz MacPherson
Liam Russell
ADVERTISING
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 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.
Realising the potential of the first 2000 days: A social investment opportunity
Aimee Hadrup examines strategies for integrating efforts across agencies and communities to maximise the impact of early childhood investments.
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.
6
Embracing accountability: Chief Ombudsman’s reflections on public sector complaints processes
Chloe Cairncross provides an overview of the Chief Ombudsman’s recent IPANZ AGM presentation to public servants.
10 INSIGHTS
He Māori Ahau conference: Empowering Māori in public service
Te Rau Hihiri reviews its inaugural conference and outlines the vision to create workplaces where Māori thrive in the public service.
14 INVESTIGATION
Why ethical AI and governance is just good information management practice
In the fourth and final of a series of articles for the Public Sector journal, Stephen Clarke explores the importance of data governance principles within the public sector.
18 INSIGHTS
Meaningful performance reporting: How do we get there?
John Ryan, Controller and Auditor-General, explores the shortcomings of our existing reporting practices in Aotearoa New Zealand, and discusses how a reformed system could better align with public expectations.
20 INVESTIGATION
Cracking the code: What drives our behaviours and how to harness them for policy-making
Abigail Bender explains her research into the drivers of behaviour and the interventions to influence pro-environmental behaviour change.
22 ANALYSIS
Digital public infrastructure explained
Luke Collier outlines what digital public infrastructure is and why the public sector and all of Aotearoa New Zealand need to get on board with it.
24 ANALYSIS
Kiwis under the lens: An inside look at New Zealand’s social media surveillance
Rachel Levinson-Waldman explains her work researching social media monitoring by the New Zealand public sector.
26 ANALYSIS
Is New Zealand a world leader in public budgeting?
Derek Gill looks at New Zealand’s Open Budget survey results and highlights the need for continuous improvement.
28 BOOK AND PODCAST REVIEW
Zaira Najam reviews a Here Now podcast episode and the recently published book Social Developments written by Tim Garlick.
29 DID YOU KNOW?
About the Policy Project
Learn more about the Policy Project, based at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
IPANZ PRESIDENT LIZ MACPHERSON
Like many others who work in the broader public sector, I signed on because I deeply believe in the value of public service and its contribution to improving the wellbeing of all New Zealanders.
There are days when it is harder to retain that deep belief than others. The publication of the Royal Commission’s report into abuse in state care was one of them. It was a day of incredulity and shame, with the recurring question, “How could this have been allowed to happen, and for decades?”
Part of the answer lies in the underlying systems and processes. There is a risk of putting vulnerable people in the complete care of poorly thought-through and resourced systems without proper oversight and accountability. To quote W. Edwards Deming, “Bad systems will beat good people every time.” Trying to change a flawed system from within can be exhausting. And there is always the risk that poor cultures and behaviours will become normalised, making it harder and harder to attract and retain good people.
So whose role is it to identify and challenge and help fix ʻbad’ systems? Who holds the system leaders accountable? To my mind this is a crucial role of central agencies, particularly the Public Service Commission, in leveraging robust monitoring from oversight bodies.
The Royal Commission provides the public sector and the
Executive with the opportunity for rigorous and unflinching self-reflection. We must ensure that the systems, processes, policies, and culture that allowed such behaviour to continue unchallenged have been or will be dealt with.
A key question will be, to what extent have changes in the last few decades improved the safety of people in care and those ʻknown to the system’?
Unfortunately the answer is not a comfortable one to hear. The December 2022 Poutasi report into the death of Malachi Subecz found that “there were those who tried to act but were not listened to, those who were uncertain but did not act, and those who knew, but chose not to act”. And in May of this year, the Independent Children’s Monitor’s review of the implementation of the Poutasi report’s recommendations found that “tamariki were no safer now than when Malachi died”.
I applaud the establishment of strong, independent monitoring and oversight of the children’s system and all systems involving vulnerable individuals. The recent reports produced by the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Ombudsman do not pull their punches. But they must not be allowed to sit on the shelf like the dozens of reports that have come before. They must be used to address the causes rather than the symptoms of systemic failure.
We all owe that to the abuse in state care victims and to Malachi.
AIMEE HADRUP
Drawing on insights from a recent Harkness Fellowship, Aimee Hadrup outlines key shifts needed for social investment to realise the social and economic benefits of intervening upstream to ensure all children have a good start in life.
Investing early in the life course is the most effective way to get upstream of our most pressing social challenges. To quote the late Professor Richie Poulton, who led the ground-breaking longitudinal Dunedin Study, “The best scientific research in the world now tells us the greatest social good will be achieved by investing in a child’s earliest years.” Unsurprisingly, the reintroduction of social investment is generating fresh interest in the foundational stages of life as a prime opportunity to increase the impact and effectiveness of public sector investment. But how do we approach the ʻfirst 2000 days’ as a social investment priority to realise this potential? And what can we learn from other countries about place-based approaches to improving early life outcomes?
What does the first 2000 days mean in practice?
The first 2000 days of a child’s life, from preconception to around age five, is a period of rapid development that sets the foundation for everything that follows. The developing child is shaped by their family’s wellbeing, which in turn is influenced by their community, neighbourhood conditions, and the policies that affect them. Neurodevelopmental science tells us that nurturing care and supportive environments around children help build the architecture of the brain, while chronic stress on families can derail child development.
Actions we take to better support families in the first 2000 days yield immediate benefits for children’s developmental trajectory, and the benefits continue to accrue over a
lifetime. It follows that the return on investing in the early years is compelling. A recent UK report, Prioritising early childhood for a happier, healthier society, estimated that a greater focus on investment in early childhood could generate £45.5 billion in value added for the national economy each year.
The challenge of implementing investment in the first 2000 days
The simplicity of the notion of investing in the first 2000 days belies the challenge of what this means in practice for the public service. No one intervention is enough on its own to move the dial, particularly for children and families that are facing adversity. No single agency ʻowns’ the first 2000 days; investment in the early years is fragmented across a wide range of agency silos, and there is little visibility of the nature of these siloed investments at national or local levels. Seeing beyond the narrow frame of governmentfunded service provision can be challenging, leading to missed opportunities to partner with local government, iwi, philanthropy, and the private sector to do things differently.
Improving outcomes in the first 2000 days requires investment and collaboration across a range of different actors to create a system of support that is integrated, coherent, and focused on what makes the biggest difference for children and their families. This is particularly relevant for those experiencing the greatest social and economic disadvantage. Focusing on ʻplace’ makes this possible.
Place matters: Learning from community-led approaches
In October 2023, I embarked on a Harkness Fellowship to learn from the United States’ early years-focused, place-based initiatives and world-leading academics at Harvard, Stanford, and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
The United States is well ahead of us in understanding the infrastructure needed for community-led approaches to support better early-life outcomes. There is widespread appreciation across government, philanthropy, the academic community, and the non-government organisation (NGO) sector that investing in the enablers of place-based collaboration is crucial for getting things right in the early years. This is not because the United States has more sophisticated policy or investment approaches; rather, community-based approaches have emerged in response to even higher levels of fragmentation caused by an array of federal, state, and philanthropic investments that ʻdon’t talk to each other’ and run the risk of being incoherent for families and communities.
Community leaders, early childhood advocates, and savvy funders have turned to place-based approaches as a way to bring together disparate parts of the local ʻearly childhood ecosystem’ into a coherent whole.
Upgrading the “operating system” for the first 2000 days
Since returning to Aotearoa earlier this year, I have been reflecting on – to quote Minister Willis – the “operating system” needed for social investment to be successful in creating “more and better fences”. I am cautiously optimistic about the stated intent for Social Investment 2.0 (the revamped model first introduced by Sir Bill English under the previous National-led government, that takes a systematic approach to improving how government invests in social services) to have more of a focus on government working in partnership with communities, including iwi and NGOs, and to increasingly devolve the delivery of social services.
As Social Investment 2.0 takes shape, three main upgrades to the operating system are necessary to achieve this aspiration:
1. Shift from programmes to place We would be wise to avoid a sole focus on interrogating the
effectiveness or ʻSocial Return on Investment’ of discrete interventions. No ʻsilver bullet’ intervention, programme, or service is enough on its own. Instead, we need to understand the portfolio of investments across the early childhood ecosystem in communities – including those that sit outside of central government – and create the permissions and platform for this to be (re)configured in ways that make a tangible difference to people’s lives.
We can learn from the United States’ place-based collaboration efforts about how to accelerate and scale this approach, such as Strive Together. This national network provides coaching, resources, and rigorous approaches that enable communities to develop their own roadmap for changing systems to improve outcomes for children and families at scale. Independent evaluation has demonstrated that this investment in place-based collaboration supports communities to achieve better outcomes faster.
2. Use data analytics to power up community-led transformation
Social investment’s focus on the use of data analytics can provide invaluable intelligence to guide impactful investment in the first 2000 days, if we leverage the sensemaking capability in communities. I was particularly inspired by the work of UCLA’s Early Childhood Ecosystems Transformation Accelerator, where neighbourhood-level data analysis was used to convene parents, families, community leaders, and organisations to co-create strategies to build a future where all children thrive.
As the team at UCLA told me, “neighbourhoods are the key units of change”. We need to leverage the power of tools like the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) to get down into neighbourhood-level analysis and plug that into the collective intelligence and sense-making capability that sits in communities. This provides a meaningful opportunity to triangulate IDI-derived insights with other forms of evidence, including longitudinal cohort studies (such as the Growing Up in New Zealand Study), practice-based evidence, lived experience, and indigenous knowledge systems.
3. Shape the solutions with those not currently well-served
Social investment is predicated on the idea that what we are doing isn’t working for the families it most needs to work for. To get different outcomes, we must do things differently. For us in South Auckland, that has meant a focus on creating the spaces for local whānau – residents of communities such as Papakura and Manurewa who are raising young children – to design what different looks like.
It makes sense that the people closest to the issues have the best line of sight to what matters most and what is
The New Zealand Harkness Fellowships are intended to enable outstanding mid-career New Zealand professionals in any field of study or vocation except health policy, to undertake a Fellowship programme that best suits their professional and personal objectives. The Fellowships seek to reinforce New Zealand-United States’ links by enabling actual or potential leaders and opinion formers in New Zealand to benefit from new ideas, practices, and new contacts in the United States. Applications for 2025 will open later in the year. For more information, see: https:// harkness.org.nz/
going to make the biggest difference. In the United States, parent councils and other fora for involvement in design and governance are commonplace. Initiatives like United for Brownsville actively invest in growing local parents’ leadership for early years system transformation, and there is strong accountability back to the priorities for change that local parents have determined. These kinds of inclusive practices are crucial to giving social investment approaches the best chance of disrupting the inertia of the status quo and achieving significantly better outcomes, now and later.
Right now, where a child is born and where they grow up dramatically influences their later life outcomes. Investing in the first 2000 days is a strategic imperative that can be realised by taking a social investment approach. By shifting our focus to investment in place, leveraging data analytics, and unlocking local leadership, we can transform early childhood outcomes and achieve long-term social and economic benefits. Let us seize this opportunity to invest in our youngest citizens and secure our future prosperity as a nation.
Aimee Hadrup is a New Zealand Harkness Fellow. She has a background in public health, with extensive experience across the commissioning, implementation, and evaluation of prevention-focused initiatives. Aimee is passionate about building public sector capability for locally-led ways of working and developing mechanisms that enable whānau, iwi, and communities to actively transform Aotearoa’s early years system. She currently leads the Tamariki Wellbeing team at The Southern Initiative, a place-based innovation team within Auckland Council dedicated to social and economic transformation in South Auckland. She is also a member of the IPANZ Board.
Join us for Aimee’s webinar on this topic on 16 October 12-1pm. Register via the IPANZ website.
Chloe Cairncross, IPANZ New Professional
member and Senior Consultant at Deloitte, provides an overview of the Chief Ombudsman’s recent presentation to public servants.
The public sector is navigating a landscape fraught with uncertainty, complexity, and disruption. This era is marked by heightened scrutiny, with social media amplifying misdeeds and whistleblowing becoming increasingly prevalent. The notion of operating a dedicated ʻcomplaints avenue’ can seem daunting, especially during times of significant staff cuts, which may foster complacency or defensiveness within agencies. Yet this zeitgeist further reinforces the need for interventions that activate the phrase du jour, ʻtrust and confidence’. Effective complaint handling is crucial for building and maintaining transparency and accountability.
At the 88th IPANZ AGM meeting, Peter Boshier, Chief Ombudsman, delivered an insightful address on the oftenoverlooked aspects of complaint handling in the public sector. His talk went beyond mere process and system issues, offering a compelling exploration of how addressing complaints effectively can drive genuine improvement and accountability.
To understand the significance of Peter’s insights, let’s briefly consider the role of the Ombudsman. Since taking on the role in 2015, Peter has navigated a position he describes as both crucial and challenging. The independent Office of the Ombudsman serves as a critical ʻwatchdog’, ensuring transparency and fairness within the public sector. Peter prefers the term “kaitiaki mana tangata” or “guardian of the welfare of the people” to describe the essence of his role. The Ombudsman’s effectiveness relies on maintaining a clear focus and staying within its mandate. Peter’s responsibilities encompass:
• resolving complaints about the administrative acts and
decisions of approximately 4000 government agencies and departments, councils, universities, school boards etc.
• resolving complaints about decisions related to the Official Information Act (OIA)
• assisting individuals who wish to disclose serious workplace wrongdoing
• overseeing Oranga Tamariki and its care providers, and investigating related complaints
• monitoring and inspecting places of detention
• ensuring fair treatment for disabled people.
These activities are undertaken to ensure New Zealanders’ rights are protected and restored, and to maintain a high public trust in government.
Peter highlighted the significant role that complaints play in public sector performance, urging agencies to view complaints as “a window into what’s going on – the canary in the coalmine”. Under his leadership, the Office of the Ombudsman has grown from 60 to 225 staff members, reflecting the increasing demand for effective complaint resolution. In 2023, the Office of the Ombudsman received over 6600 complaints, the second-highest amount on record.
An increase in complaints does not necessarily indicate poor performance by agencies. A surge in complaints can demonstrate an increased demand for information and a crucial need for accountability and transparency during periods of uncertainty. The critical factor is the effectiveness of the processes and systems each agency has in place to respond to these requests.
Peter shared impactful case studies that underscore the human element behind complaints. For instance, a rangatahi placed in an Oranga Tamariki care and protection unit faced numerous hurdles across multiple grievance avenues before finally turning to the Ombudsman. Such cases highlight the need for streamlined and responsive complaint processes that prevent individuals from having to repeatedly recount their issues.
Some overlooked complaints handling process issues include:
Bureaucratic bottlenecks: At times, when a complaint is lodged, it can get stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. The inefficiency of these processes not only delays resolutions but can also exacerbate the frustration of those who are seeking redress.
Behind every complaint is a person or community seeking resolution and justice.
Why it matters: Delays in addressing complaints can undermine public trust in the system. When people feel that their concerns are languishing in limbo, their faith in the efficacy of the complaint process wanes, which can erode confidence in public institutions as a whole.
Inconsistent handling procedures: Complaints procedures can be inconsistently applied across different agencies. What this means is that while some complaints are dealt with swiftly and effectively, others can get lost in the shuffle or handled poorly, depending on the agency involved and the resources it has applied.
Why it matters: Consistency is crucial to fairness. When procedures vary widely, it creates a sense of inequality and injustice among complainants. Everyone should have a reasonable expectation of how their complaint will be treated, regardless of which part of the public sector they are dealing with.
Lack of clear communication channels: Communication, or rather the lack thereof, was another critical issue. Peter noted that sometimes complainants are left in the dark about the progress of their cases. The absence of transparent communication channels means that people are unsure of where their complaint stands or what steps are being taken.
Why it matters: Transparent communication is crucial for maintaining trust. When complainants are kept informed, they are more likely to feel valued and less likely to feel frustrated. Clear updates and regular communication can make the complaints process feel more manageable and less opaque.
The importance of protected disclosures Peter also addressed the critical issue of protected
With most of the major public sector changes underway, we are now at the beginning of a rebuilding phase. Reprioritised projects and initiatives are taking effect. This will be a cautious rebuild which could last another 6-12 months before new operating models start to take effect.
August Market Update
Contractors – We are seeing a small rebound in the contractor market along with a definite trend towards fixed term, rather than hourly rate work, particularly in regards to small to medium sized agencies. There are opportunities for Change Specialists, ER and Project Management roles beginning to surface. Contractor rate cards are being implemented in some public sector agencies to help manage contractor hourly rates.
Permanent and Fixed Term Roles – These are still flat a bit like the contracting market. However, we are seeing some activity in the areas of Procurement, HR, ER, Comms, IT and finance roles.
Between now and December there will be a lot of change and rebuilding activity so it would be good to stay up to date as new initiatives and opportunities surface. Visit www.H2R.co.nz/meet-our-team for the contact details of our recruiters.
Main Phone Lines:
Wellington: 04 4999471
Auckland: 09 3687300
disclosures. He recounted the 2017 case involving former Ministry of Transport senior manager Joanne Harrison, which exposed significant legislative gaps. This led to the implementation of the Protected Disclosure Act (PDA) in 2022, designed to strengthen protections against wrongdoing, bullying, and misconduct.
An effective PDA process is vital for organisational integrity and public sector accountability. However, recent surveys reveal a concerning gap: while a quarter of people have witnessed serious wrongdoing at work, less than half have made a protected disclosure. Only 44 per cent of staff feel safe reporting misconduct. Despite these fears, protected disclosures and inquiries to the Ombudsman have nearly tripled in the past two years, with issues ranging from financial mismanagement and unsafe work practices to sexual harassment and inadequate organisational responses.
By […] striving to improve complaint handling processes, public sector agencies can better serve their communities and uphold the values of transparency, fairness, and integrity.
Peter acknowledged that while New Zealand’s public sector is not fundamentally flawed, there is always room for improvement. He praised the professionalism of public sector agencies while recognising the challenges they face, especially when operating with limited resources and dealing with a wide range of inquiries.
The Covid-19 pandemic, which served as an unintended backdrop to Peter’s September 2022 report Ready or Not?, highlighted the need for more, not less, information, accountability and transparency during periods of uncertainty. During the pandemic, some agencies considered deprioritising OIA responses due to staff shortages. Yet it was in this same period that complaints to the Ombudsman increased. Peter’s advice remains pertinent today: to promote and maintain trust, agencies must be responsive to requests for official information and complaints from the public. He also stated that an effective complaints process is one that is integrated into an agency’s core business.
People have a right to make comments or to raise concerns. They also have the right to expect their complaints to be heard. Complaints can provide insight into problems or inefficiencies in an agency’s day-to-day operations.
By regularly monitoring complaints, these issues can be identified and fixed before they multiply or escalate. These responses help to foster good relationships with the public and demonstrate that an agency is committed to resolving problems and willing to improve public satisfaction with the services provided. Ultimately, embracing a robust complaints system can help organisations make better operational decisions, provide a quality service, and save time and money in the long run.
So where to from here? It’s vital to practise self-reflectiveness and consider the following: When was the last time your agency’s complaints handling procedures were reviewed? Do staff clearly know when and how to escalate a complaint? Does your agency keep good records of the decisions it makes? How do you keep disclosers safe?
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier outlines essential features of effective complaint handling and protected disclosure processes:
Complaints handling:
Client-focused: The process should be visible, accessible, valued, and supported by management. Prompt and fair response: Complaints should be responded to promptly and handled objectively, fairly, and confidentially.
Stimulating improvement: Clear accountabilities for complaint handling should be established, and complaints should be used to drive agency improvements. This is supported by robust recordkeeping and reporting.
Empower staff: Staff at all levels should be able to triage, acknowledge, and respond to complaints early, enacting the lowest possible level of resolution before matters escalate.
Protected disclosures:
Clear policy and support: Agencies should have a visible policy that demonstrates commitment to supporting those who report serious wrongdoing by staff, and handling such matters properly.
Practical procedures: Internal procedures should be clear and practical so that staff understand their obligations and the process for handling disclosures.
Public service standards: Referencing the Public Service Commission’s Model Standards for “Speaking Up” can guide organisations in establishing effective protected disclosure processes.
People in the public sector are encouraged to check out the Ombudsman’s website for more information about handling complaints and protected disclosures, as well as Te Puna Mātauranga, his recently launched online learning platform designed to help staff develop their official information practice skills.
Peter’s reflections remind us that behind every complaint is a person or community seeking resolution and justice. By embracing these lessons and striving to improve complainthandling processes, public sector agencies can better serve their communities and uphold the values of transparency, fairness, and integrity. As Peter nears the end of his role as Chief Ombudsman, his legacy will be one of fostering a culture where complaints are seen not just as problems but as opportunities for meaningful change and growth.
Chloe Cairncross is a Senior Consultant at Deloitte and a member of the IPANZ New Professionals Leadership Team. She studied English and Art History, and went on to develop her career in the public sector across business units responsible for customer service, regulatory compliance, and digital services, before making the move to consulting. She continues to primarily work alongside government agencies, helping them to embrace innovative technologies, drive transformational change, and positively impact operations and business processes.
Te Rau Hihiri, the charitable trust aiming to empower and advocate for Māori working in and with the public sector, reviews its inaugural conference and outlines the vision to create workplaces where Māori thrive and innovate in the public service.
Imagine a workplace where Māori perspectives and cultural history are not just acknowledged but actively harnessed to drive collective success. A workplace where the language, culture, and identity of tangata whenua are critical inputs for unique solutions that tackle many of the complex challenges we face as a country. This is the belief that motivates many Māori who have dedicated themselves to working in the public service. They work in public service, in service to their whānau, hapū, and iwi.
There have been many times in our country’s short history where being a Māori public servant has been challenging. Two decades ago, over 15,000 Māori from across the motu (country) joined the hīkoi to Parliament grounds to protest the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation. Many Māori still working in the public service today can recall how they felt during that time. Feelings of being powerless, confused, and upset as they watched the hīkoi weave past their office windows. They were desperate to join their whānau, but worried about what that might mean for their employment.
Since the outcome of the general election last year, being Māori working in the public service is becoming increasingly difficult. We are seeing all things Māori come under attack. Agencies are reneging on their use of te reo Māori, undoing Te Tiriti-based policies, and cutting many Māori roles. The anti-Māori rhetoric can, at times, find its way into everyday work conversations and water cooler chats.
And yet, the important mahi doesn’t stop. Improving outcomes for Māori, giving tangible effect to the articles and principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and embedding te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori into the core business of government remains a necessity. This requires Māori excellence at all levels of government, authentic partnering with iwi and Māori communities, and safe and inclusive work environments that support Māori success as Māori.
These were some of the issues discussed at the inaugural He Māori Ahau conference, held on 26 June 2024 in Wellington. The event brought together kaimahi (employees) Māori working in and with the public service, building momentum from the hui hosted by Te Āti Awa in January 2024 at Waiwhetu. The conference provided a platform for sharing knowledge, experiences, and practical tools. It received strong support from mana whenua Te Rūnanganui o Te Āti Awa and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira.
The conference resulted in several outcomes:
• Empowerment: Attendees felt inspired to recognise their strength as Māori. They were reminded of the legacy left by many Māori public servants of past times. Foundational work like Pūao-te- Āta-Tū and Te Kōhanga Reo were raised as examples of groundbreaking successes of Māori working in the public service.
• Actionable plans: The workshops produced practical ideas for building inner strength and supporting organisational change. Coming together to form employee networks, reaching out to one another across teams or agencies. Participants were reminded that we are not individuals working in isolation; we need to weave a great big basket of taonga together. We are an organic system of networks.
• Continued engagement: Participants expressed a desire for more events, workshops, and opportunities to connect and learn. There was strong interest in spending time with sector-specific groups and reanga (generational) groups. People want more events throughout the year to connect and strengthen community, including in the regions.
One thousand kaimahi Māori, representing 260 different organisations, came together and stayed from pōwhiri (the welcome) to poroporoaki (the closing). This alone was a powerful statement about how important many Māori feel about issues impacting them in their workplace, and the flow-on impacts for our whānau and communities.
Attendees heard from inspirational kaikōrero (speakers) who provided motivational talks that ignited a sense of purpose and collective action among participants. Te Rau Hihiri Chair Kara Nepe-Apatu says the messages from kaikōrero reminded us that being Māori is our superpower and that we are the expression of our tūpuna dreams. “They challenged us to continue the legacy left by our ancestors, and to unite together to launch waka propelling us towards Hawaiki Mokopuna (realising our potential) – a future where our mokopuna (grandchildren) know no limitations to realising their potential.”
The conference emphasised kotahitanga (unity) by bringing together kaimahi Māori from various sectors to strengthen their collective impact. The morning breakout sessions focused on co-designing a five-year action plan, harnessing collective strengths and ideas to achieve the vision of Hawaiki Mokopuna. Ideas shared included:
• finding ways to break through silos to collectivise and collaborate
• designing Māori-led capability development programmes that focus on upskilling and gaining
practical tools that build more resilience across the Māori workforce
• creating spaces across government agencies where kaimahi Māori can be unapologetically Māori in all they do
• uplifting Pākehā and tauiwi (non-Māori) colleagues and using allyship to collectively support Māori causes
• opening doors for younger Māori to rise through the ranks within the public service
• advocating for Māori-led development within the public service, supporting marae and empowering hapū and iwi-led development
• maintaining a focus on wellbeing, providing support structures and strategies for managing (real and perceived) racism in workplaces and creating culturally safe spaces.
The feedback highlighted the conference’s success in providing a culturally authentic and empowering experience. Te Rau Hihiri trustee Elena Higgison says, “He Māori Ahau was a unique kaupapa and authentic to its name. It was a celebration of Māori success in the public service. We were really proud to have provided an opportunity for 1000 kaimahi Māori from across the public service to come together to share their experiences in a safe space.”
One informal measure of the conference’s success was the large number of positive conversations across social media platforms after the event. This conference was not just a
conference but a catalyst for ongoing transformation. This transformation calls on leaders to continue the work of empowering Māori within the public service. The collective action, cultural identity, and resilience demonstrated at He Māori Ahau serves as a powerful reminder that Māori success is not just possible but inevitable when we unite and support each other.
As we move forward, the challenge lies in maintaining this momentum, creating more opportunities for Māori to be heard, and ensuring that the tools, knowledge, and connections forged at this conference continue to shape the future. The responsibility now rests with all of us to carry this vision forward – to create workplaces where Māori thrive, innovate, and lead the way to a future where our mokopuna know no limitations.
To truly uplift Māori staff, public service leaders must move beyond traditional methods and commit to investing in solutions that are crafted through a Māori lens. This means actively seeking out conferences, workshops, and strategies that centre on Māori and indigenous knowledge, and ensuring that staff attend and participate in these events. By embracing these approaches, leaders can create environments where Māori employees are empowered to lead, innovate, and succeed on their own terms. It’s time for all of us to step up, take action, and work together to ensure that Māori voices not only contribute to the conversation but help shape the future of our workplaces.
How will you lead the charge in making this transformation a reality?
Turou Hawaiki! (May the force be with you!)
Elena Higgison, Ngāpuhi, has 20 years’ experience working across the government sector, leading policy and strategy development, and then driving execution. Elena’s passion and focus is the Māori economy. She specialises within the nexus of te ao Māori, technology, and government. It has meant she has gained a unique ability to act as a cultural translator and conduit between the government and a wide range of stakeholders.
Kara Nepe-Apatu, Ngāi Tai, is a seasoned public servant with over 17 years’ experience, predominantly focused on policy analysis, strategy development through to implementation, and cultural intelligence. She has a passion for imagining our future from a Māori lens and on the daily focuses on supporting the Māori economy, Māori Crown Relations, and exemplary application of He Ara Waiora.
In the fourth and final of a series of articles for the Public Sector journal, Stephen Clarke, Data, Information and AI Management Consultant and former Chief Archivist, explores the importance of data governance principles within the public sector.
As the public sector is beginning to be disrupted by artificial intelligence (AI), impacting core functions like healthcare and education, the need for robust ethical frameworks and governance mechanisms becomes more critical.
At its core, ethical AI and governance is, in my opinion, an extension of traditional information and data ethics and governance. The rise of AI governance ʻexpert’ roles, I believe, is just a reflection of how poorly we have been undertaking this core infrastructural good practice for information and data management over the preceding couple of decades.
The emerging topic of ʻethical AI governance’ shares a core value with traditional records and information management practices. Both these areas reflect the common need for governance, ethical considerations, and regulatory compliance. The ISO 15489 Standard for Records Management describes the attributes of information as reliability, integrity, authenticity, and usability.
The following 10 considerations show how AI ethics and governance is really the same as existing information management practices.
High-quality information is crucial for the success of AI systems. Poor data information can lead to inaccurate models, biased outcomes, and eroded trust. Managing information quality involves rigorous validation, cleansing (retention and disposal), and enrichment processes (metadata management), which are fundamental aspects of data governance. In addition, addressing technical debt – the cost of deferred maintenance or suboptimal solutions – is vital for maintaining the integrity and performance of AI systems. This requires ongoing investment in data infrastructure, information management policies, and governance practices to prevent the accumulation of technical debt.
• Ethical AI governance: Emphasises the need for high-quality, accurate, and unbiased data to ensure that AI systems produce reliable and fair outcomes.
• Information management: Focuses on maintaining the integrity and accuracy of records throughout their lifecycle to ensure reliable and trustworthy information.
Legislative frameworks around the world are evolving
to address the challenges posed by AI. Regulations like the European Union’s AI Act set stringent requirements for data protection, transparency, and accountability. These regulations are built on existing principles of data governance, emphasising the need for lawful, fair, and transparent data processing. Compliance with these laws necessitates a deep understanding of data ethics and governance, as organisations must navigate complex legal landscapes to ensure their AI systems adhere to regulatory standards. Regulatory conformance is not a new consideration; for example, the first information management legislative challenge was the introduction of the first Freedom of Information Act in Sweden in 1766.
• Ethical AI governance: Requires adherence to laws and regulations concerning data protection, privacy, and the ethical use of AI, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and AI Acts.
• Information management: Involves compliance with various legal and regulatory requirements for data retention, privacy, and access, ensuring that records are managed according to applicable laws.
Privacy and data sovereignty are paramount in the age of AI. Ethical AI governance must prioritise the protection of individual privacy rights and comply with data sovereignty laws that dictate where data can be stored and processed. These concerns are deeply rooted in traditional information and data ethics, which emphasise the importance of safeguarding personal data and respecting jurisdictional boundaries. This is even more important in the Aotearoa New Zealand context in seeking to meet our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori data sovereignty, and managing information such as taonga, as the New Zealand public sector information management profession has wrestled with over the last 50 years or so.
• Ethical AI governance: Prioritises the protection of individual privacy and personal data, ensuring that AI systems do not infringe on privacy rights.
• Information management: Includes safeguarding personal and sensitive information within records, preventing unauthorised access, and ensuring confidentiality.
Public trust in AI systems hinges on their transparency, fairness, and accountability. Ethical AI governance ensures these systems operate within societal norms and values, avoiding biases that could lead to discrimination or injustice. This mirrors the broader goals of information and data ethics, which aim to safeguard individual rights and promote equity in data handling practices. Information management practice, however, seeks to embed these principles from the very fabric of how information is collected and managed, not as a post-creation guardrail.
• Ethical AI governance: Demands transparency in AI decision-making processes and accountability for the outcomes produced by AI systems.
• Information management: Requires clear documentation and traceability of records, ensuring that actions can be audited, and maintaining accountability.
Information stewardship involves the responsible management and oversight of information assets. In the context of AI, this means ensuring that data is used ethically and in alignment with organisational values and public expectations. Information management maturity is critical for achieving this. Mature public sector agencies are better equipped to implement comprehensive information stewardship and governance strategies, incorporating ethical considerations into their AI development and deployment processes. This maturity is often reflected in well-defined information management frameworks, as set out in the Public Records Act 2005, privacy practices, and a culture of continuous improvement of information management capability.
• Ethical AI governance: Involves responsible management and oversight of AI data assets, ensuring ethical use and alignment with organisational values.
• Information management: Entails stewardship of records and information assets, ensuring they are managed responsibly and ethically throughout their lifecycle.
Effective information management, over time, is the backbone of ethical AI. It encompasses the policies,
procedures, and standards governing data collection, storage, use, and dissemination. Metadata management, training data registers, and rigorous data quality assessments are essential to this process. These practices are not new; they are rooted in established data information management frameworks that prioritise data integrity and reliability. The Lifecycle Model was conceived by Phillip Coolidge Brooks and Emmett J. Leahy in the United States National Archives in the 1940s, so it’s an almost century-old approach.
• Ethical AI governance: Focuses on managing the lifecycle of data used in AI, from collection and storage to processing and disposal, ensuring ethical considerations are maintained at each stage.
• Information management: Involves managing the entire lifecycle of records, including creation, maintenance, use, and disposal, with a focus on ethical and compliant practices.
7. Metadata management, ontology, and taxonomy
Metadata provides context and provenance information, aiding in traceability and accountability. Ontologies and taxonomies help structure data, enabling more accurate and meaningful AI insights. These practices are foundational elements of information management, ensuring that data is well-organised, understood, and utilised ethically. These considerations are also at the heart of how LLMs (Large Language Models) are used and deployed, which are the basis for generative AI.
• Ethical AI governance: Uses metadata to provide context, provenance, and traceability for data used in AI systems, enhancing transparency and accountability.
• Records and information management: Relies on metadata to organise, classify, and manage records, supporting efficient retrieval and ensuring records are appropriately contextualised.
It’s time to reinvest in our information management teams, our organisational practice, and the maturity of our capability.
Good data and information management practices, including retention and disposal schedules, are critical for ethical AI governance. These practices ensure that data is retained only as long as necessary and disposed of securely when no longer needed. This reduces the risk of data breaches and ensures compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Records management is a well-established discipline emphasising the importance of managing data lifecycle processes ethically and responsibly. It is also critical to maintain records of automated decision-making, training data, algorithms, data processing, and outputs for as long as they are required to be accessible for accountability and reproducibility purposes.
• Ethical AI governance: Requires policies for the retention and ethical disposal of data used in AI systems to prevent misuse and ensure compliance with regulations.
• Information management: Involves implementing retention schedules and disposal policies to manage records’ lifecycle, ensuring they are kept only as long as necessary and disposed of securely.
Automated decision-making systems powered by AI raise significant ethical concerns. These systems must be transparent, explainable, and accountable to ensure they do not perpetuate biases or make unfair decisions. Ethical AI governance involves implementing robust oversight mechanisms, including audit trails, decision logs, impact assessments, good recordkeeping, and provenance. These practices are extensions of established information management principles that prioritise accountability and transparency in data processing activities.
• Ethical AI governance: Involves identifying and mitigating risks associated with AI systems, including biases, data breaches, and unethical outcomes.
• Information management: Includes assessing and managing risks related to records, such as loss, unauthorised access, and non-compliance with regulations.
Training promotes a culture of responsibility among AI practitioners. It ensures that those involved in AI development and deployment are conscious of the ethical dimensions of their work and are committed to upholding ethical principles. Maintaining records of training and staff awareness is crucial in providing evidence of good intent, and awareness of ethical practice in information design and handling is usually already addressed in the organisation’s information management training.
• Ethical AI governance: Requires training stakeholders on the ethical use of AI, ensuring they understand the implications and responsibilities associated with AI systems.
• Information management: Involves educating employees on proper records management practices, including compliance, privacy, and ethical considerations.
In essence, both ethical AI governance and traditional records and information management practices are concerned with responsible and ethical data handling. They share common goals of ensuring data quality, protecting privacy, maintaining compliance, and fostering transparency and accountability. As AI continues to evolve, integrating these established principles into AI governance frameworks will be crucial for promoting ethical and responsible AI use. By drawing on these established principles of information management, privacy, and accountability, public sector organisations can develop and deploy AI systems that align with societal values, comply with legal requirements, and promote equitable outcomes. So it’s time to reinvest in our information management teams, our organisational practice, and the maturity of our capability.
Stephen Clarke is a Virtual CDO and Information/Data Management Consultant. Originally from the United Kingdom, Stephen has worked in senior information and data management roles across the New Zealand public sector for the last 15 years. His most recent role was as Chief Archivist, after moving on from his role as Chief Data Officer at the NZ Transport Agency. Stephen has undertaken similar roles in IRD, DIA, Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman and Transpower NZ Ltd. Internationally, Stephen is known as a standards expert, having developed standards for information management for Australia and New Zealand and internationally for ISO. As an anthropologist Stephen understands human systems, and as a technical expert he understands information systems. Using technology to connect these two systems to get the right information, to the right people at the right time, ethically, is his professional goal.
John Ryan, Controller and AuditorGeneral, explores the shortcomings of our existing reporting practices in Aotearoa New Zealand, and discusses how a reformed system could better align with public expectations and enhance accountability.
Imagine the commentary on an All Blacks game telling you which side had the most possession, the number of tackles made, and the amount of extra time – but not the score or which team won.
Or, perhaps, going to your doctor and being advised that your lab results were produced on time and to the highest laboratory standards – but not what the results were.
I suspect this would leave you both dissatisfied and a little suspicious as to what was really going on. While this would be utterly unacceptable in our day-to-day lives (especially where we are paying for services), this is what we see far too often in public organisations.
Annual reports are full of agency plans and busyness, but they do not address what the public cares about most: Has all this activity and spending made our lives better?
A lack of clarity on what agencies are looking to achieve, and what progress is being made, leaves the door open for other narratives to emerge. It is hard to respond to criticism if you can’t show others (and yourself!) these basic aspects of performance.
In my opinion, public organisations can make many improvements within the current settings. However, fundamental reform is needed to create a performance and public accountability system that’s fit for a 21st-century New Zealand.
Why performance reporting matters
Trust and confidence in governments worldwide is declining. A recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report found that more people
have low or no trust in their country’s government (44 per cent) than have high or moderately high trust (39 per cent).
The report notes how effective communication by public organisations can build trust in public institutions – or damage that trust if communication is seen as inaccurate, inaccessible, biased, or irrelevant.
The state of performance reporting
Current performance reporting often hits the target but misses the point. It usually follows the rules but doesn’t give Parliament and the public what they want to know.
I see too many instances of:
• performance measures that are not meaningful; and
• reporting that does not adequately explain how government is improving outcomes.
There are also no clear statutory requirements for reporting on the delivery of outcomes at the individual entity level, across agencies, or at a whole of government level.
Annual reports are full of agency plans and busyness, but not what the public cares about most: has all this activity and spending made our lives better?
Improvements can be made now …
The good news is public organisations can, to some extent, improve their performance reporting under the current settings.
A new accounting standard requires performance information to be appropriate, meaningful, and understandable to people outside the organisation.
The website of the Office of the Auditor-General also provides guidance to support public organisations in presenting more meaningful performance information.
I expect organisations to provide the following:
• Honest and balanced reporting on what matters to the public, and on what went well and what didn’t.
• Meaningful measures of how well an organisation is delivering services and outcomes.
• Reporting that shows a clear connection between an organisation’s activities and the difference they make for New Zealanders.
Some organisations do this well, and our guidance includes examples others can learn from. We are working on articles about the more challenging areas of performance reporting, the first of which will be published later this year.
… but we need fundamental reform
However, to secure system-wide and enduring changes, in my view, there needs to be a review, then reform, of current legislation.
The previous Parliament recommended an inquiry into performance reporting and public accountability, to be overseen by a special ad-hoc select committee. The Finance and Expenditure Committee intends to progress this work in 2025.
I fully support this. Given its role in holding government to account, it is appropriate that Parliament plays a leading role in this process.
A review could explore questions such as:
• What is the purpose of a public accountability and reporting system?
• What would performance reporting that meets Parliament’s needs, and the diverse range of interests and perspectives held by New Zealanders, look like?
• What information does the public and Parliament need to understand government performance at the individual organisation, sector, major initiative, and allof-government levels?
• How can performance reporting strengthen the focus on the outcomes that government seeks to achieve?
• How can performance reporting better support a focus on the complex and long-term issues facing New Zealand?
• What barriers (for example, legislative) are blocking the development of a performance reporting system that is fit for the 21st century?
• What role should Parliament and the public play in any reform process?
These are questions anyone interested in public accountability should consider.
John Ryan began his term as Controller and Auditor-General on 2 July 2018. He graduated from Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington with a Bachelor of Commerce and Administration. He studied strategic leadership at Oxford University and is a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants. He has held senior executive positions in a range of public sector organisations and in the private sector. His experience spans corporate, regulatory and operational management, and assurance. During his career of more than 40 years, John has led some of the largest programmes of capital works in the public sector, large-scale change management, and significant regulatory reform.
Abigail Bender, a former PhD student, who now works as an adviser for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, explains her research into the drivers of behaviour and the interventions to influence pro-environmental behaviour change.
When I was younger, I used to carefully avoid cracks in the pavement, founded on a belief that one erroneous foot placement would cause irreparable damage to my mother’s back. As an adult, I thankfully feel no need for such hopscotch. However, I find my behaviours in other areas are still influenced by beliefs that others might deem irrational.
The drivers of our behaviours are opaque, often even to ourselves. However, theories exist that attempt to explain why we act the way we do. It is in this area that I have conducted my research, which focused on identifying the psychological variables most strongly related to individuals’ pro-environmental behaviour. However, the findings have implications that extend across the broader spectrum of human action.
By understanding what governs behaviour it is possible to tailor interventions aimed at behaviour change more effectively, including policy programmes that seek to influence behaviour. For example, when behaviour is related to an individual’s sense of identity, an intervention that provides feedback on past behaviour is appropriate. On the other hand, when action is driven by a strong feeling of responsibility, information about the consequences of a problem would be more relevant.
The studies I examined typically relied on participants self-reporting their intentions (see sidebar on next page). Whilst a valuable way to gauge future action, the association between intention and behaviour is imperfect. This is due
to social desirability responding: where participants report what they think the experimenter wants to hear. In the real world, there are also barriers that prevent intentions from manifesting into actions.
By conducting studies which directly observed participants’ pro-environmental behaviours, I was able to show personal moral norms were the variable most strongly related to behaviour, followed by attitudes.
Techniques to influence individuals’ personal moral norms include commitment-making, information about environmental problems, and the impacts of specific behaviours. These techniques represent helpful starting points when looking for effective behaviour change interventions.
Nudge policies, based on understandings from behavioural economics, aim to alter behaviour while preserving freedom of choice.
For example, we tend to maintain alignment with ʻhow things are’, termed the status quo bias. By changing default settings, for example making pension plans or organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in, outcomes can be altered without restricting individuals’ active choice.
The availability bias is another example which causes us to act on salient information. Replacing unhealthy food with healthier options at the checkout represents a simple nudge that can improve dietary outcomes.
One of the most studied theories is our tendency to imitate others. In my work I evaluated actions when participants were and were not aware of the pro-environmental behaviours of other participants.
While no direct effects on behaviour was found for this manipulation, an interaction with personal moral norms was detected, suggesting a complex interplay between our underlying biases and behavioural determinants, such as norms. These interactions represent fertile ground for further inquiry. Understanding when and how nudge policies can be most effective could greatly enhance efforts to influence behaviour positively.
To promote environmental action, and encourage behaviours that would improve social welfare more generally, it is necessary to understand what factors influence behaviour in the first instance. My work has demonstrated the importance of personal moral norms and attitudes, while also shedding light on possible interactions between personal moral norms and our behavioural biases. More work is needed to build a basis of
Attitudes are the favourable (or unfavourable) dispositions you hold; they are considered to be a summation of underlying beliefs. For example, I could have a positive attitude towards ice cream due to beliefs about its taste and texture, with the strength of this moderated by a perceived risk of brain freeze.
Values are foundational drivers of action and are traditionally classified as egoistic (self-serving), altruistic (other serving), and biospheric (in service of nature).
Perceived behavioural control refers to a felt ability to perform a particular action. My dedication to ʻavoiding the cracks’ would have been undermined had I grown to have size 16 feet.
Norms are a family unto themselves. Injunctive norms are the beliefs you hold about how others would judge your behaviour. Would they approve? Descriptive norms are your beliefs about how others themselves would act in a similar situation.
Finally, personal moral norms are internalised obligations to avoid or follow a particular course of action. They are typically accompanied by feelings of guilt or shame if not adhered to.
I found 180 studies reporting correlations between participants’ attitudes and their intentions to perform a pro-environmental behaviour. The meta-analysis I conducted was able to summarise these 180 studies and give an overall best estimate of the correlation. In this way I was able to show that attitudes, personal moral norms, perceived behavioural control, injunctive norms, and descriptive norms correlated on average most strongly with pro-environmental behaviour.
evidence across the spectrum of different behaviours and understand interaction effects. It is hoped eventually such a knowledge base will enable the tailoring of behaviour change interventions to a desired action and its context, to more effectively bring about positive change.
Abigail Bender moved to New Zealand from the United Kingdom four years ago to study for a PhD in environmental psychology. Prior to living in New Zealand, she completed a Master’s in environmental policy at Cambridge University, and worked as an external expert for the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. She is now working for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in Wellington.
Luke Collier, Partner in Deloitte’s Digital Transformation team, outlines what digital public infrastructure is and why the public sector and all of Aotearoa New Zealand needs to get on board with it.
Digital government makes it possible to provide services more efficiently and at lower costs while also making these services easier for citizens to access. It is clear that investment needs to be made into digital government. This is consistently emphasised in reports on productivity, equity, growth, and international competitiveness. The private sector is also committing significant capital to core system upgrades, service digitisation, and the introduction of innovative new services and products.
This digital investment could be as big and as complex as investments in physical infrastructure. It could have substantial positive benefits for the economic and social welfare of all New Zealanders. However, our approach to planning, investing, and maintaining digital infrastructure is less well-developed than our physical infrastructure capabilities. A new approach called ʻdigital public infrastructure’ presents an opportunity to improve our digital infrastructure capabilities and, hence, realise the benefits of living in a more digital world.
Digital public infrastructure (DPI) sits between the physical digital infrastructure layer (eg, an ultra-fast broadband network) and the specific apps people use, such as online banking and passport renewals.
The best way to think about DPI is to compare it to physical
infrastructure like roads. Roads (the physical layer) allow cars, trucks, buses, vans, and bikes (the apps) to deliver public, private, and non-profit services to people. But between the physical road and the cars is an intermediary layer we often don’t think about, but it is fundamental to making our roading network efficient and safe. The road code makes sure we all understand how to operate on the road. Signs, road markings, and traffic lights control the flow. Number plates let vehicles be identified whether bikes, cars, or buses. And we have petrol stations plugged into the roading network to allow things to keep flowing.
DPI recognises, that like roads, our digital infrastructure needs a set of reusable building blocks that anyone can use, whether they work for government or businesses. We need to plan for and jointly invest in these things for maximum benefit. The most common elements of DPI are:
• Discovery and fulfilment: Supports finding and accessing services as efficiently as possible, through a one-step process; for example, my.gov.au is the discovery and fulfillment system for the Australian government services.
• Identity and registries: Digital identities allow people, organisations, and products to be identified in a trusted way. Digital identity is generally regarded as the core of DPI.
• Consented data sharing: Seamless, safe, and trusted exchange of data is a fundamental component of DPI. This needs to encompass consent management to allow citizens to choose how their data is used.
• Digital payment infrastructure: Simplifies the rapid and safe transfer of money. This includes existing infrastructure like eInvoicing but also newer concepts like smart contracts and digital accounts.
Why DPI?
Digital enablement as a resource multiplier is a powerful way for Aotearoa New Zealand to meet its most essential needs. DPI is crucial for enhancing productivity, entering
new markets, fostering innovation, and promoting sustainability. It can be used in a way that is both longlasting and scalable.
While physical infrastructure benefits are localised, DPI enables a national uplift in efficiency, service delivery, and equity. It paves the way for innovative service delivery models, including a revitalised social investment approach with outcome-based commissioning and devolution to local community providers and iwi. A more joined-up and thoughtful approach could see us lay the beginnings of DPI alongside social investment that can then be used to tackle some of our other wicked problems.
There are numerous global examples of the same digital building blocks within DPI being used to transform health, business setup, social assistance, and trade. The impact of good DPI is beginning to extend beyond single nations into international efficiencies for those nations with common DPI components. For example, the European Union uses DPI to realise a ʻonce only’ principle for information capture across the entire bloc.
What does Aotearoa New Zealand need to do to realise the opportunity of DPI?
New Zealand was world-leading in its digitisation efforts and in some areas we continue to be digital leaders. However, in recent years we have not kept up. In the Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Digitising Government, it was recognised that “modern, agile and digitally enabled services that span agency boundaries challenge the public service’s existing funding, governance and delivery models, and we have struggled to change or overcome these deeply rooted settings”.
Global experience with DPI suggests six main elements could be used to accelerate our progress:
1. National policy framework: A clear, integrated, and agreed national policy on DPI is essential for ensuring the required joined-up direction.
2. Dedicated DPI alliance: DPI is only successful with a joint public, private, and not-for-profit alliance behind it. That alliance will need to educate, incentivise, monitor, and enforce.
3. Partnership ecosystem: Outside of the core alliance a broader ecosystem of activators, investors, facilitators, and builders is needed.
4. Financial framework: Creating a funding pipeline for DPIs requires public, private, and not-for-profits to have clarity on what should be publicly, privately, and jointly funded.
5. Progressive infrastructure: DPI around the world is creating a set of tried-and-true design patterns and building blocks based on advanced infrastructure and the ability to work with other systems.
6. Outreach and capacity building: Successful nations have created urgency and momentum around DPI by establishing a policy-driven change management and adoption strategy from the very beginning.
Luke Collier is a partner in Deloitte’s technology team. His passion lies at the intersect of digital solutions, organisations, and transformation. As a leader in delivering digital transformation services for Aotearoa’s public sector, Luke focuses on empowering agencies and private sector partners to utilise digital capabilities to address issues and enhance services for all New Zealanders. Hailing from the Bay of Plenty, with connections to Te Whakatōhea, Ngāitai, and Ngāti Porou, Luke is committed to working alongside Deloitte clients to embrace the future that technology offers while honouring learnings from the past.
Rachel LevinsonWaldman was awarded a 2024 Ian Axford Fellowship. Here, she explains her work researching social media monitoring by the New Zealand government.
As the Managing Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, I was familiar with how United States government agencies and police departments use social media to gather intelligence. Our non-profit, non-partisan law and policy institute aims to address and strengthen our systems of democracy.
Through a public records lawsuit, for instance, we unearthed never-before-seen information about how the Los Angeles
Police Department had used social media to target activists for racial justice. We also identified how commercial companies were pitching their tools to law enforcement agencies, both revealing their capabilities and raising questions about whether much of what they were selling was snake oil. Another public records request disclosed a contract between the US Department of Homeland Security and a large public university to try to create a tool that would scan public social media to determine who was a terrorist. This approach had already been roundly dismissed as invasive and ineffective.
I was thus intrigued to read in the New Zealand press about the recent use of social media monitoring tools by Immigration New Zealand and the New Zealand Police. I thought that concerns about transparency and accountability mirrored much of what I was seeing in the United States. I was deeply fortunate that the New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner agreed to host me and support my research, through an Ian Axford Fellowship in Public Policy. I thought I could bring my expertise in government social media monitoring, including my perspective on the potential risks to privacy, civil rights, civil liberties, and democratic
accountability, to analyse the situation in New Zealand and help propose a balanced framework.
Unlike the United States, with its enormous and often opaque federal bureaucracy, in New Zealand I was able to connect directly with public servants at the New Zealand Police, Inland Revenue, Ministry of Primary Industries, Accident Compensation Corporation, and more. As a result of those information exchanges and my own research into a range of publicly available materials, I was ultimately able to provide the most comprehensive picture ever assembled of how New Zealand public sector entities view, collect, monitor, and analyse information that is posted on social media by individuals and groups – a practice that is growing, but at a much more moderate pace than in the United States.
Of the 12 agencies I identified that used social media for information collection, my research revealed that only eight were known to have policies specifically guiding their use of social media, and only one – the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – had proactively released its policy. I also disclosed for the first time – with the permission of my agency contacts – specific policy guidance governing agency practice. Based on my analysis, I compiled a breakdown of how each entity was authorised to use social media, from general internet or social media searches to the use of alias accounts to connect directly with individuals to the use of commercially available tools.
In addition, I offered a comprehensive analysis of the potential harms arising from state access to and use of
social media. These include:
- the capacity to collect vast amounts of information about individuals and groups at the click of a button
- the difficulty of interpreting social media, where meaning is often highly dependent on a common language, cultural references, or understanding of rapidly changing memes and other online shorthand
- the chilling effect on freedom of expression and dissent
- the heightened impact on marginalised groups, including Māori, LGBTQ+, Muslim, and immigrant groups
- and the amplification of these risks arising from the growing use of artificial intelligence and commercial tools.
This analysis was situated within the context of online activity in New Zealand’s unique political and social history. This includes activists’ use of Instagram and Facebook to raise awareness about the Ihumātao land occupation, the growing presence of right-wing extremist groups on social media platforms, and the complex role of the New Zealand Police, with the service’s emphasis on policing by consent on the one hand and its history of disproportionate policing and surveillance of Māori on the other. And, of course, the Christchurch massacre, and the perpetrator’s use of social media, was never far from mind.
I closed with a set of recommendations, highlighting critical and overdue updates to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and the Privacy Act 2020, urging that all public sector entities publish clear policies, and proposing a set of questions to guide governmental bodies as they consider policy language and their own social media use cases.
One feature that stood out to me during my time in New Zealand was the Kiwi perspective on the role of government. I was struck by the focus on social licence and by the evident commitment – whether it was achieved in every instance – to align an agency’s work with what the public would be comfortable with. I believe that perspective situates Aotearoa to pursue this technology with care, grounded in respect for human rights, civil rights and civil liberties, and New Zealand values.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman served as a 2024 Ian Axford Fellow in Public Policy at the New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner. She is Managing Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, where she works to shed light on the government’s surveillance practices and its collection and use of data for law enforcement and national security purposes. Rachel has authored articles and reports on a range of topics, including the government’s use of social media, and has provided expert input for publications including The Guardian, The Washington Post, Wired, The Atlantic, and The New Republic. She is a graduate of Williams College and the University of Chicago Law School.
Derek Gill looks at New Zealand’s Open Budget survey results and highlights the need for continuous improvement.
The latest Open Budget Survey for 125 countries, including New Zealand, was released on 30 May 2024. The big headline is that Aotearoa New Zealand, which has been ranked first (or first equal) since the survey’s inception in 2006 but dropped to fourth in 2021, has clawed its way back to second behind Georgia and just ahead of Sweden. My analysis of details of the New Zealand survey results can be found in TINZ Transparency Times, so won’t be repeated here.
This overall ranking reflects as much about how the survey is constructed as it does about how New Zealand’s budgeting is actually performing. The overall score masks varying performance across the different pillars of the survey: budget transparency, participation, and oversight. Aotearoa New Zealand ranks highly in first or second place on budget transparency and public participation, while on oversight, New Zealand comes in much lower at number 18. However, because budget transparency has a larger number of questions, where New Zealand performs highly, our overall ranking has disproportionately improved. Using equal weights for each pillar would change the relative rankings and bring other countries, such as South Korea, into the top group alongside New Zealand.
In the late 1980s and 1990s New Zealand was a pathfinder, leading the way with several innovations and world firsts in public budgeting. For example:
• the introduction of output and outcome budgeting, so audited performance information was available on what had been delivered as well as what inputs had been consumed
• the adoption of accrual accounting and the production of consolidated Crown Accounts, reducing the scope for accounting fiddles
• the commitment to the discipline of the fiscal
responsibility principles, so the government of the day was accountable for fiscal performance against the targets they had set themselves
• the introduction of long-term fiscal projections (covering up to 40 years) every four years, so citizens and businesses had a clear visibility of the fiscal outlook beyond the six years covered by the budget documents.
Since that time, there have been relatively few budgeting innovations to highlight. Some worthy of mention include:
• the 2013 amendments to the Public Finance Act effectively abandoned any serious attempt in legislation to require systematic outcome information in budget documents
• New Zealand has, in effect, abandoned ʻoutput budgeting’ for ʻpot of gold budgeting’: the perverse consequence of seeking to introduce greater flexibility through measures such as multicategory appropriations
• output and outcome performance reporting has fallen
into disrepute, not because of any lack of effort on behalf of the public sector, but because the authorising environment is fundamentally inhospitable, according to The Iron Cage Recreated (Institute of Policy Studies 2011).
• despite the Treasury’s extensive endeavours, the experiment with wellbeing budgeting does not appear to have made any appreciable practical difference in the actual major budget decisions and allocations with a few exceptions at the level of some micro-level programmes supported.
It is time that New Zealand restarted the debate about whether we should have a Parliamentary Budget Office.
One promising development under the Ardern administration was the development of the Ardern proposals for an Independent Fiscal Institution. The Treasury has a well-developed proposal for a Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), the functions of which were agreed by Cabinet in 2019. However, the proposal did not garner the political cross-party support required to proceed as an Office of Parliament due to opposition by the then Opposition Spokesperson on Finance.
Since then, Nicola Willis, the new Finance Minister, has indicated a willingness to support setting up an agency to cost political parties’ policies. However, according to the New Zealand Herald, she isn’t as “receptive to calls for the establishment of an independent unit to check Treasury’s forecasts and ensure government spending is sustainable”.
Creating a PBO would significantly strengthen New Zealand’s fiscal constitution if it would:
• provide for independent evaluation and commentary on New Zealand’s fiscal policy performance
• improve parliamentary scrutiny of public finances and fiscal policy
• strengthen the Treasury’s independence in the preparation of economic and fiscal forecasts
• raise the quality of the public discourse on public finances
• provide for independent costings of political party policies to better inform public debate and general elections.
It is time that New Zealand restarted the debate about whether we should have a PBO. Eighty per cent of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have independent fiscal institutions, including all the leading OECD countries with which we typically compare ourselves. The International Budget Partnership and OECD both recommend that New Zealand needs such an institution.
The recent election highlighted the case for opposition parties to have access to credible independent advice on costing policies. What we saw was an unseemly debate about the robustness of the costs of the proposed tax cuts. The real debate should have been about the merits of the policies and their affordability – not the cost. The public of New Zealand deserves better, particularly as election promises get hard-wired into coalition agreements.
Derek Gill was the Open Budget reviewer for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2023 as well as 2021. Derek has spent most of his career working on public finance and public management issues during his career at the New Zealand Treasury, the OECD, as a deputy at what is now called the Public Service Commission and as a researcher at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington School of Government.
Derek is a board member of IPANZ, Transparency International New Zealand, and several other NGOs and a research associate at NZIER and the Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington School of Government. This article is prepared in his capacity as New Zealand Open Budget reviewer.
IPANZ New Professionals’ Network Member
Zaira Najam reviews a Here Now podcast episode and the book Social Developments by Tim Garlick.
Podcast
Radio New Zealand’s podcast series Here Now, hosted by Kadambari Raghukumar, explores the journeys people take to settle in New Zealand, their identities, and the factors that influence their lives here. In the episode ʻA hard-won love’, Dr Carolyn Providence, an international medical graduate from the Caribbean, talks about the significant challenges she faced as a woman of colour integrating into New Zealand’s medical system after moving from the United Kingdom. Initially working in a regional hospital, she encountered marginalisation, bias, and a lack of support, leading her to relocate to Auckland. Despite these struggles, Carolyn now serves as a senior medical officer and advocates for improved support and mentorship for international medical recruits. Reflecting on her journey, she emphasises the need for better cultural integration and representation in healthcare to address the issues faced by new immigrants.
Book
Social Developments – An Organisational History of the Ministry of Social Development and Its Predecessors, 1860–2011 by Tim Garlick is a good read in a time of institutional or structural change and uncertainty. It provides an organisational history of the Ministry of Social Development, focusing on changes in administrative strategies, structures, and cultures. A key aspect of the book is its exploration of the human impact of constant restructuring, helping readers empathise with the challenges faced. It also examines how these changes were influenced by broader reforms and external pressures. The history covers the evolution
of welfare administration from the mid-19th century to the present, with a focus on the 40 years (1970s–2011) and the impact of state sector reforms. Each chapter explores different periods of welfare administration, reflecting shifts in attitudes, technology, and the sociopolitical environment. The history shows ongoing efforts to adapt and refine social services in response to changing circumstances. Each reform phase aims to improve effectiveness and efficiency while balancing immediate needs with long-term goals. The lessons learnt from this book can be applied to the wider public sector – any structural change in an organisation or a system must not be shortsighted.
Zaira Najam, a member of the IPANZ New Professional leadership team, holds a background in Economics. She came to New Zealand from Pakistan to pursue her PhD at the University of Waikato and was captivated by the beauty of Aotearoa. She made a heartfelt decision to stay in New Zealand and contribute to the public sector, striving to enhance the lives of people in New Zealand. With a fervour for community development and a strong advocacy for equal rights, her commitment extends beyond professional expertise, embodying a genuine passion for fostering inclusive growth and social justice.
Learn more about the Policy Project, based at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, tasked with advancing best practice in public policy across the public service.
1
The Policy Project developed the standard for policy advice in New Zealand. This standard, known as the Policy Quality Framework, helps guide policy practitioners and agencies to improve the quality of their advice. Advice may be for a minister, Cabinet, or other decision-makers.
2
In addition to the policy standard, there is a Policy Skills Framework to support the development of individual policy practitioners and a Policy Capability Framework to support agencies to identify the elements of a successful policy shop. These three frameworks form the foundations of the Policy Project’s work programme.
3
Ben King, Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has recently taken up the role as Head of the Policy Profession. The Head of the Policy Profession chairs the Policy Profession Board, made up of senior leaders across the public service. The Board oversees the policy capability work programme and provides guidance on challenges and opportunities for the policy system as a whole.
4
You can find a range of helpful policy resources on the Policy Project’s web pages. This includes the guide for Writing for Ministers and Cabinet and Start Right Guide, for getting policy projects off to a good start. Many policy staff and agencies already use the Policy Skills Framework to find practical ways to develop their skills and support their professional development.
5
Along with resources and tools, the Policy Project provides training for policy practitioners, focused on policy skills common to their roles. For example, in September it will run courses on ʻWhat Makes a Good Cabinet Paper’ and ʻKnowing Your Numbers: Presenting Evidence and Data to Ministers and Cabinet’. It also supports graduate programmes and those new to policy with a ʻWhat is Policy Making?’ course based on a case study and the policy cycle.
6
The Policy Project has a regular newsletter that anyone can subscribe to. It includes articles about upcoming events and training offerings, available resources and tools, and news relevant to the policy profession. You can subscribe to the newsletter online at: https://tiny.cc/32vkzz
■ Flexibility to tailor your learning to your interests, career objectives, and work–life balance
■ Places available for recent graduates
Gain a qualification in 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.
of Business and Government