The parson bird chatters, the parrot gabbles, the wood pigeon coos

Last week, a graduate analyst I mentor asked me why I am so against evidence-based policy.

I was a little surprised.

I’m not against evidence. Instead, I am someone who works hard to ensure my advice does not naively wish away the emotion, uncertainty, complexity, contest, power imbalances and plurality that pervades public policy.

For me, evidence-informed policy is necessary for two main reasons.

First, it enables innovation and creativity. In the absence of absolute long-term certainty, evidence-informed policy creates enough “headroom” for the professions (teachers, nurses, clinicians, social workers, police, soldiers, sailors, aviators, engineers and scientists) to take the next step.

And second, evidence-informed policy assists politicians cut through the noise and offer a persuasive narrative to the electorate.

But, evidence and professional judgement are mutually interlinked and do not constitute a public policy choice.

Both have unique characteristics, like the individual cry the birds make. It makes all sorts to make a world, and variety is the spice of life.

E koekoe te kōkō, e ketekete te kākā, e kūkū te kererū