Matua whakapai i tōhou marae, ka whakapai ai i te marae o etahi

14/8/2023

Let’s discuss ACT’s proposal to set KPIs for public service chief executives. As someone who’s spent years studying public sector governance, I can see both merit and significant risks in this approach.

First, let’s acknowledge the timing. Yes, it’s appropriate for a new government to reset its relationship with the administrative executive. As the whakataukī above suggests, the incoming government has both the right and responsibility to shape its governance arrangements and define success. Senior officials, in turn, must rise to meet these expectations.

The proposal has some commendable elements. It recognises that institutional performance and public accountability matter deeply. Every Minister and chief executive should have a clear performance improvement narrative. I’m particularly impressed that many of the proposed indicators are designed from a community impact perspective rather than just measuring inputs or objectives. There’s also an apparent attempt to link this with existing accountability architecture – performance agreements, ministerial expectations, workforce plans, and budget appropriations.

However – and this is crucial – there are serious structural problems with the proposal as it stands.

First, you can’t cherry-pick accountability tools. Good public sector governance also requires performance standards for ministers and integration into the broader architecture. Focusing solely on chief executive KPIs is like trying to steer a waka with only one paddle.

Second, this approach treats our public sector as a collection of independent agencies, each pursuing its objectives. The research is detailed: this creates gaming behaviours and inefficiencies. It’s particularly problematic for coalition governments, as it enables ministerial fiefdoms. And let’s be honest – no single agency can solve our complex social challenges alone.

Third, input controls are overemphasised. Any performance framework must reward innovation and continuous improvement, not just compliance.

Fourth, without systematic performance reporting, we risk creating a reporting industry that only Wellington insiders can understand. That’s the opposite of proper accountability.

Let’s be clear: governing is incredibly challenging, especially in our current context of fiscal constraints, high expectations for effective spending, and evolving social license. We must find that spot between meaningful accountability and avoiding bureaucratic quicksand.

The Prime Minister’s role is crucial here. They can’t simply delegate these matters to individual Ministers. The PM’s Office needs to actively ensure ministers collaborate effectively and that senior officials understand and can deliver on ministerial priorities while serving the public interest.

So far, no party has demonstrated that it truly understands this delicate balance. Perhaps the coalition negotiations will reveal more sophisticated thinking on this front.

On a more positive note, ACT’s regulatory reform proposals show promise despite their high-level nature. Their focus on continuous improvement through user feedback and administrative burden assessment is sound. However, it’s worth noting that this actually means more work, not less—giving regulatory Ministers veto power over policy decisions means more high-level meetings, not fewer.

This isn’t just about performance measurement – it’s about creating a public service that can effectively deliver for Aotearoa New Zealand while maintaining proper democratic accountability.