Matariki Recommended Reading List 2024: Waiho mā te arero rātou e hahu ake

1/7/2024

Each year, as we move towards Matariki, I gather the seeds of knowledge I found most valuable in the previous year and offer them to others.

In 2021, I offered knowledge on good public sector governance, focusing on collaboration and anticipatory governance. I did this because I observed that the authorising environment was struggling with its theory of public governance, so I assembled this specific literature for several clients and readers.

In 2022, I offered links to research and theories on decolonising Anglo-American public institutions. This was my attempt to encourage public officials to avoid displacing rangatiratanga by brown-cladding their advice and instead focus on good equity, cost-benefit, and institutional analysis. Said differently, I saw too much te reo me ona tikanga advice masquerading as public policy advice – both are required.

Last year, I gathered all the research I had used to write a report on equity of access, outcomes, quality and process related to vaccination uptake, and, in particular, the work Te Ao Māori institutions did to produce equity because the state appeared to be both unwilling and unable to do so. 

This year, I am working on public sector reform in Aotearoa-New Zealand, for a few clients. My overseas clients have observed that we are looking a bit “rough” and a bit “untidy,” so I thought I would run them through the various reforms we have undertaken.

So, in the spirit of whakataukī above, I thought I would offer these key documents to my readers as part of my annual Matariki reading list.

As the whakataukī suggests, we keep things alive through talking and speaking about them – for they are always with us.

We begin with the 1880 Royal Commission into the Civil Service In New Zealand. The inquiry concluded that there was patronage in allocating jobs and an ‘aristocracy of government officials’ who enjoyed much better working conditions than other New Zealanders had developed.

Below is the 1912 Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service of New Zealand. The focus was on ending political patronage and ensuring the efficient management of public funds.

Issues of value for money are not new here in Aotearoa-New Zealand—any more than Māori’s calls for sovereignty and honouring Te Tiriti are.

The Commission resulted in changes to how officials in the Public Service were hired, fired, and graded, and most importantly, why all appointments and promotions needed to be based on merit – not just the appearance of merit.

I am working with the National Library to access the 1961 Royal Commission of Inquiry into the State Services. It is currently behind various paywalls.

It is sufficient to say that it is essential reading because it is the precursor to policy advisory and new public management systems.

Justice Thaddeus McCarthy crowd-sourced the advice from across the state and business sectors. His focus was on efficiency, economy and improved service delivery.

It proposed the creation of the State Services Act 1962 and what we now know as the central agencies, in so much as they are supposed to be the institutional regulators on efficiency and effectiveness.

What was also interesting about this Royal Commission is that it proposed a Head of Public Services, not unlike the model in most Anglo jurisdictions, with the State Services Commissioner reporting directly to the Prime Minister and being the true Head of the Public Service – not just the chief people officer.

As I understand it from people around at the time, Holyoake thought it would make the State Services Commission too powerful, so he refocused them on staffing, industrial relations and pay-fixing.

This did not go well for the State Service Commissioner or the Government of the Day.

By 1968, a Royal Commission of Inquiry was appointed to try to rein in staffing costs.

This inquiry had the impact of devolving decision-making to individual departments, although senior officials – also commonly known as the “College of Cardinals” – still oversaw the public policy advisory system.

The conditions for new public management were firmly put in place by this commission of inquiry.

While not commissions of inquiry, the reforms to the public service in 1984 and 1988 can be found in the various Treasury briefings to incoming ministers.

I have linked the most relevant one below. Also linked is the briefing on the new Public Finance Bill.

While not a commission of inquiry, I also link Professor Allen Schick’s papers on the reforms. Both are important. Professor Schick concluded that the 1980s reforms delivered specificity but at a considerable cost: fragmentation for citizens, a focus on efficiency rather than effectiveness, a checklist and issues approach to policy, and the possibility of a culture of inward-looking self-regarding managerialism.

 

From the above article, Professor Schick advised developing countries to avoid the “New Zealand model”.

I am also including Puao-Te-Ata-Tu here, which preceded but reflected Schick’s concerns, except from a Māori point of view. This report – and its themes – echo today.

I am also adding the Cave Creek inquiry alongside Puao Te Ata Tu. It is hard to overlook the dreadful impact an agency that is only concerned with efficiency and does not care much about stewardship or safety can have. It is also the last time a chief executive and minister were forced to take individual responsibility seriously.

In 2001, the Review of the Centre reported. While not a Royal Commission, it was supposed to examine how the central agencies and core public service were organised and operated.

This led to a softening of political control documents, with purchase and output agreements replaced with Statements of Intent.

In 2004, the Managing for Outcomes project called for greater collaboration across agencies to overcome the fragmentation created by the 1980s reforms and to focus the service on outcomes rather than inputs.

This project created new public and networked governance conditions in Aotearoa-New Zealand.

Ministers had another go at tidying up the central agencies in 2006.

This resulted in the development goals, which were built on Prime Minister Shipley’s SRA and KRA framework and were a precursor to the targets of Better Public Service.

This was Mark Prebble’s attempt to assert the role of the State Services Commissioner as Head of the State Services.

The Better Public Services Advisory report was released in 2012. It attempted to integrate the Managing for Outcomes framework and Development Goals idea into the various public service operating and delivery models.

This work resulted in input and output costing tools, four-and-ten-year budget plans, result areas, and political and administrative executive alignment around outcome areas. It also aligned chief executive recruitment and performance with agency and institutional performance.

This work fell away in 2018.

It was replaced with the living standards framework, a child poverty reduction measure, and the new Public Service Act, which relied on public service motivation as a defining feature of public service.

Who knows what happens next?

My sneaking suspicion is we are well overdue for a Royal Commission.

The public attitude to the public service has hardened.

The reforms of the past fourty years have been accountability reforms.

By that, I mean I am more concerned with who is to blame than with substantive changes to the public service operating model.

It feels like a question that needs shaping and exploring.

Watch this space.