Tē tōia, tē haumatia (me kāwanatanga)

17/7/2023

As the whakataukī suggests, not much is achieved without a plan and people to do the mahi. I’d add that not much is achieved without good governance.

Here are some thoughts on public sector governance. I am not arguing for the models because they are not yet adapted in a Te Tiriti-led way. However, I think it is worth unpacking the main governance models we have seen used by the public sector.

Public sector governance refers to all the processes used to coordinate activities so they produce collective public policy impact. That is because most policy issues are interdependent and symbiotic. And no single crown agency can produce an effect on its own.

The public management literature suggests four models: hierarchy, market, network and hybrids.

Hierarchical governance is a command and control. It is Weberian. Bureaucrats work in a hierarchy of authority and conserve the Crown’s position. When Minister’s say jump, officials ask how high. These models are closed systems where bureaucrats oversee and control delivery.

Market governance was ushered in during the 80s reforms. It reflects neo-liberal beliefs about competition and markets. It relies on incentives and information. Bureaucrats must work with and through service delivery models, often at arm’s length. In our context, most public service delivery models are on the broader state services or third sector. So when a Minister says jump, officials have to ask the non-crown and non-state actors whether or not they want to do jump and for what price. Public Private Partnerships are a good example. Many social sector contracts are in their model, even if they say they are outcomes-based.

Network governance is a response to the failure of both hierarchical and market governance. Network governance invites non-core-crown and non-state actors to the table. Alliance contracting is a good example, as are Boards of Trustees. Other examples are the various working groups and prime ministerial taskforces, from Positive Ageing to the Business Advisory Council, including the Iwi Chairs Forum (aligned and non-aligned). In theory, network governance is the idea that the state cannot hope to deliver all the effects, so it brings those with an interest or a stake to the table so all efforts are coordinated and all the risks are mitigated. Unfortunately, it attracts sector interests, lobbyists, and those with power.

Hybrid governance acknowledges government initiatives that come and go, overlap, and leave echoes or residues of varying size and style behind.

I hypothesise that we are developing a fifth governance model in Aotearoa. I don’t have a name for it – yet. However, it combines the strengths of network governance with the strengths of deliberative democracy. It focuses on local solutions to local problems.

It is collaborative, led by the community and place-based. It has a “nothing about us, without us” flavour. Examples include the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, the Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs, the Waikato River Authority or Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao. We see Mayor Brown starting to give some form to this type of governance in how he interacts with the poneketanga.

But let’s be clear: the political arguments against network governance and the fifth-yet-to-be-named governance model, because they involve giving iwi and hapū special rights, are ludicrous. Beyond the fact that iwi and hapū are indigenous, and the current arguments and the politicians running them will pass into dust, they are arguing that iwi, hapū and Māori should be excluded from these tables because of their race.

Let’s be honest, as well as clear: iwi, hapū, and Māori are at these tables because they have a legal interest in many cases, and no one else can formulate, promote, and achieve their objectives without them. Very few of the outcomes and results successive Governments seek can be achieved without mobilising, exchanging, and engaging in Te Ao Māori ideas or leaning on iwi and hapū resources.

So when political parties and politicians say no to “co-governance,” they appear to be saying iwi, hapū, and Māori should not be part of the public sector governance arrangements because of their race.
This is institutionalised racism – the deliberate exclusion of people based on race.

And that should give a pause for thought and worry because it is a failure of good governance – and a failure of kāwanatanga – and a breach of Te Tiriti.