The Roles The Government Can Play

15/3/2024

People often ask why public institutions don’t perform as well as they should. My answer is simple. You cannot get efficiency or effectiveness unless Cabinet brings three basics to the table.

First, clarity about what role government is meant to play in each policy area.

Second, a strategy that cuts through the mess of today’s complex and often incoherent authorising environment.

Third, a few core outcome areas, with usable measures, so that leaders inside the system can focus their people and deliver.

This is not just theory. I have reviewed more than seventy Performance Improvement Framework reports. Each one, in its own way, points to the same answer.

When you combine role clarity, strategy, purposeful outcomes, and sound financial control, public institutions are more likely to deliver.

Without them, drift is the default.

The role of government itself drifts too. In Aotearoa, we rarely revisit or re-examine it. Programmes and services usually just keep going until a new leader arrives or until there is a machinery-of-government shuffle. The system is set up for incrementalism. Most of the time, things shift slowly and without much notice.

But when change does come, it comes hard. Big shifts tend to follow crisis. The reforms of the 1980s followed a deep economic crisis. The post-COVID service delivery changes were about getting certainty for private developers carrying significant financial risk, particularly in Ōtautahi. They needed to know if, when, and where the Crown would be a tenant. The state responded with one-stop shops because it had to.

Failure also drives change. Pike River gave us WorkSafe. Cave Creek forced Treasury to get serious about effectiveness. NovaPay collapsed and had to be replaced by Education Payroll Limited. The leaky homes crisis pushed a long-overdue reset of the regulatory system. These changes were not planned or progressive: they were forced.

This pattern is well-known. The literature calls it punctuated equilibrium: long periods of drift, punctuated by crisis-driven reform. The same pattern applies to how we think about the roles of government. They are usually inherited and assumed, not designed. They are set and forgotten until the next shock.

And yet, despite all this, there is a constant. The essential promise of government is still to deliver safety, security, and prosperity to its people. It is the same promise that was offered to the Māori Battalion and their whānau—that full citizenship would follow service and sacrifice. For many, that promise remains unfinished business. You hear it clearly today in the karanga, whaikōrero, and waiata calling for equity—not just in access, but in process, quality, and outcomes.

Against this backdrop, I often hear the tired argument that government should just set the rules and get out of the way. That view is usually held by people who have never worked in government. Anyone who has knows that most sector interests spend as much time finding ways around the rules as they do complying with them. Then they complain when government tightens those rules to close the loopholes they have exploited. Worse, their behaviour often drives up compliance costs, which are then blamed on the public service.

When I talk about the role of government, I am talking about something much more specific than vague ideas like stewardship or a general interest in outcomes. I am talking about the pōtae: the hats government wears or the six roles it can play. These include engaging, co-designing, owning, devolving and funding, and advising on performance to Ministers and, ultimately, to Parliament. They are real roles, with real choices attached. I have seen them play out in practice and, at their best, they help the system focus, prioritise, and deliver. They should not be assumed. They should be deliberate.

For each role, I have listed what I have seen done when the government is working with that particular role in mind.

This is not all of them, but this is what I mean when I talk about the role of government. This is the level of clarity and specificity I am talking about when I use the concept. It is also the level of clarity and optionality ministers ought to be able to expect from the policy advisory system.

I hope that helps.

PS: I often get asked why I don’t include the role of government in supporting the Crown with its Te Tiriti obligations; that is because Te Tiriti analysis needs to be woven through every role of a government decision. But if I were to put my penny down, it would be ‘engage’ in relation to the Article Two institutions and devolve/fund in respect of the Article Three institutions—at a bare minimum.

PSS: And yes, you can now see why I was upset by the lack of focus on capability, accountability and performance over the past six years. From my point of view, it was an abdication of one of the key pōtae the government wears.