Government’s six pōtae (hat | role)

12/2/2024

Over the past few weeks, several readers have contacted me and asked me to explain what I mean by the role of government.

Their questions were prompted by the hypothesis I hold about institutional performance: in short, efficiency and effectiveness are only possible if the Cabinet brings three things to the table: first, clarity about the role it wants the government to play in each policy domain; second, an agreed strategy that simplifies what an increasingly complex (and frankly confusing) authorising environment is; and finally, a set of outcome areas with some useful measures that enables the good people leaders to engage their people in the strategy and ensure it’s delivery.

I explained to those readers that my hypothesis is based on a systematic analysis of seventy-plus Performance Improvement Framework review reports. Together with good financial control, these three elements help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector core business.

Before I discuss the six pōtae (hats or roles ) of government, let me provide some context.

Firstly, the role of government in Aotearoa-New Zealand tends to change at the margin and by evolution. Programmes or projects tend to drift along, with changes happening because there is either a change in programme leadership or a machinery of government change.

Stasis, rather than crisis, typically characterises public policy in our little archipelago at the top of the world. But don’t get me wrong, dramatic and revolutionary change does happen. However, those changes are associated with a crisis or significant delivery failure. The 80s reforms were a response to a crisis, as were the service delivery models post-COVID changes. The one-stop Crown shops in Ōtautahi are a good example: they were a practical response to providing certainty for private sector developers who – if truth be told – carried a lot of financial risk during the recovery effort and needed to know where and when the Crown would be a tenant.

Significant failures that have resulted in significant change include the establishment of WorkSafe after the Pike River disaster and the shift to effectiveness measures by the Treasury following the collapse of the platform at Cave Creek. These are but two examples. Other examples include the establishment of Education Payroll Limited to overcome the problems of Nova Pay, and the changes to the performance of our regulatory systems following the weather tightness commission of inquiry.  

In the literature, we call this punctuated equilibrium theory. It is a theory that holds that most policy-making, policy frameworks and the sort of people attracted to public policy are better at describing and advising on the need for stability, certainty and status quo than suggesting radical change or the need for significant improvement.

The same is true for the pōtae or roles of government. Except for moments of crisis or failure, the role of government is pretty much assumed and kept constant: it is more set and forgotten than continuously evaluated and improved.

The other context I want to call attention to is the timelessness of our broad conception of the role of government: i.e., the nation-state ensures the safety, security, and prosperity of all the citizenry. While this gives settler-state vibes, it was the promise made by the Crown to the soldiers and whānau of the Māori Battalion: fight for the empire on foreign lands, and we promise to deliver you and your whānau full citizenry. Indeed, for many who lost whānau in those battles for the commonwealth, that promise continues to be the clarion call: you can hear it in the public discourse now. It sounds like the karanga, whaikorero and waiata centred on better citizenry in honour of those who have fallen, exemplified in the state’s ability to ensure equity of access, process, quality and outcomes.

Finally, before we move into the details, I want to address a simplistic view of the role of government held by many who have never worked in government. This group believes governments should set the rules and get out of the way. As someone who has written public policy for regulators and designed funding and levy models for the same, I can promise you that most sector interests spend as much time trying to avoid and get around the regulations as they do with complying with them. Then, those same sector interests moan when those loopholes are closed, and compliance increases, even though it is a direct response to their gaming. If only there were a way to place the cost with those sector interests driving compliance costs through their bad behaviour.

Anyway, back to the thrust of this post. When I am talking about the role of government, I am talking about the following: the kāwantanga as engaged, co-designer, owner, devolver/funder, and finally, performance advisor to Ministers, and ultimately, Parliament.

To unpack what I am talking about, I have added examples from my own experience of what it looks like when a government is one or other of these things. It’s by no means perfect: think of it as a heuristic.

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 outraged by the lack of focus on capability, accountability and performance over the past six years. From my POV, it was an abdication of one of the key pōtae the government wears.