He Māramatanga: Another perspective

22/8/2023

Apropos of nothing – let me unpack this critical issue of ministerial-executive relationships and institutional performance through a public policy lens. The gap in our system isn’t just about policy or delivery – it’s about the fundamental preparation of ministers for what is essentially a governance role over complex public institutions.

We’ve created sophisticated frameworks for public sector leadership but remarkably little for ministerial capability development.

Consider this paradox: In the private sector, we wouldn’t dream of putting someone in charge of a major organisation without relevant governance experience or training. Yet in our public institutions, which manage far more complex challenges with broader social implications, we often have ministers learning on the job, sometimes with devastating consequences.

Cave Creek wasn’t just a tragedy but a stark reminder of what happens when governance fails at multiple levels. When we talk about “appropriate funding” and “institutional capability,” we’re talking about lives, communities, and public trust.

Let’s be crystal clear about what good looks like in this context:

First, ministerial competence isn’t optional. A minister who can’t effectively engage with their department, understand complex policy issues, or defend their decisions in Parliament isn’t just struggling personally – they’re compromising institutional effectiveness. We’ve seen this play out particularly dramatically in Australia and the UK, where ministerial inexperience has led to policy failures and institutional damage.

Second, the relationship between ministers and chief executives must be built on shared accountability and mutual respect. When this relationship breaks down, we don’t just see poor policy outcomes – we see institutional degradation. Performance metrics become political footballs rather than tools for improvement. Core business suffers while attention gets diverted to managing relationship dynamics.

Third, there’s a critical balance between political priorities and institutional stability. Yes, departments must be responsive to government priorities, but not at the cost of their fundamental capabilities. Ministers need to understand that stripping resources from core functions to fund new initiatives is a false economy that often leads to institutional failure.

Looking ahead, we need to seriously consider how we prepare ministers for their governance roles. This isn’t about undermining political prerogative – it’s about ensuring our public institutions can effectively serve their purpose while maintaining public trust.

The reality is that poor ministerial performance doesn’t just affect policy outcomes – it erodes the very foundations of public service effectiveness. When ministers can’t effectively engage with performance metrics, can’t articulate a clear vision, or can’t maintain productive relationships with their departments, the entire system suffers.

For incoming governments, the message should be clear: Ministerial capability isn’t just about political acumen – it’s about governance competence.

The space between ministers and officials isn’t just an administrative gap to be managed; it’s a critical zone where public value is either created or destroyed.