Public Sector IPANZ - July 2014

Rāngai Tūmatanui

Vo l u m e 37: 2

July/August 2014

Journal of the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand

PUBLISHER The Institute of Public Administration New Zealand PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand Phone: +64 4 463 6940, Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: admin@ipanz.org.nz Website: www.ipanz.org.nz ISSN 0110-5191 (Print) ISSN 1176-9831 (Online) The whole of the literary matter of Public Sector is copyright. Please contact the editor if you are interested in reproducing any Public Sector content.

EDITOR Shelly Farr Biswell: shelly@biswell.net CONTRIBUTORS Carl Billington Peter Gluckman Shaun Hendy John Larkindale Margaret McLachlan John R Martin Rose Northcott John O’Leary Alasdair Roberts PROOFREADER Nikki Crutchley JOURNAL ADVISORY GROUP Len Cook Chris Eichbaum, Chair John Larkindale Julian Light Margaret McLachlan Ross Tanner

CONTENTS President’s message: Borrowing from our children? By John Larkindale................................2 And the winner is…the public: IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards.........................3 Guest editorial: Brokering knowledge – Giving science advice to government

By Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor..............................4 IPANZ New Professionals Conference.........................................................................................4 COVER STORIES Is it logical? Using evidence in developing social policies....................................................5–6 Living in the Colour-Coded City................................................................................................7–8 Technocrats or Populists: Who gained influence during the Global Financial Crisis?............9 Globalisation and sovereignty – can we have both?........................................................ 10–11 The power of collaboration – NZTA’s registry system modernisation project................ 12–13 Political sentiments – the future of the public sector...................................................... 14–16 IPANZ news..................................................................................................................................17 Companies Office gets tough on overseas criminal organisations................................. 18–19 Obituary: Kenneth William Piddington...................................................................................... 20 Communications: The four essential steps to best practice.................................................. 21 The Big Smoke: A conversation with Auckland Council Chief Executive Stephen Town...................................................................................................................... 22–23 Point of view: Science and its privilege in the policy arena

By Professor Shaun Hendy.........................................................................................................24

And the winner is...the public

ADVERTISING Phone: +64 4 463 6940; Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: comms@ipanz.org.nz

IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards

3

DESIGN J&K Design PRINTING Lithoprint SCOPE IPANZ is committed to promoting informed debate on issues already significant in the way New Zealanders govern themselves, or which are emerging as issues calling for decisions on what sorts of laws and management New Zealanders are prepared to accept.

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS Public Sector considers contributions for each issue. Please contact the journal’s editor for more information.

SUBSCRIPTIONS IPANZ welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions.

Please email admin@ipanz.org.nz, phone +64 4 463 6940 or visit www.ipanz.org.nz to register online.

DISCLAIMER Opinions expressed in Public Sector are those of various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor, the journal advisory group or IPANZ. Every effort is made to provide accurate and factual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur.

Companies Office gets tough

18–19 The Big Smoke: A conversation with Auckland Council Chief Executive Stephen Town

22–23

Front cover image: © Nigel Spiers | Dreamstime.com Christchurch Aerial View of Eastern Suburbs: An aerial view of the eastern suburbs of Christchurch, New Zealand. Includes Linwood in the foreground and the Estuary, Bromley, South Brighton and Redcliffs in the background.

Public Sector is printed on an economically and environmentally responsible paper sourced from internationally certified Well Managed Forests and manufactured with EMAS accreditation (ISO 14001).

July/August 2014 Public Sector 1

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Borrowing from our children?

T

fundamental principles of our system may no longer suffice.

For my part, I believe that those principles must be considered valued taonga. We draw on them today, but we also have a responsibility to take on the role of kaitiaki. We need to understand our responsibilities to be stewards of what we have inherited so that future generations too can benefit from what those who came before us created. That is not to suggest that nothing should ever change. Of course not; times, technologies and societies move on and we must always ensure that what we have is fit for purpose. But we need to understand the difference between change that erodes fundamental principles and change that implements those principles in a way that reflects current circumstances.

That fundamental principle of stewardship finds legislative form in the Public Sector Amendment Act 2013. This is an excellent concept, but I wonder what impact it had on how the Government and the agencies through which it implements its programmes operate. There is always going to be an implicit conflict between the shorter-term drivers inherent in our threeyear electoral cycle and the need to plan and implement for the long term. Inevitably, some compromises will have to be made.

But there needs to be careful consideration of potential dependencies.

For example, I have always supported, in principle, the efforts of successive governments to encourage and support sensible and sustainable economic growth. Quite apart from the fact that the means have to be generated to allow New Zealanders to have access to well-designed and adequate healthcare, social welfare and educational services, there is ample empirical evidence showing that there

is a correlation between the wealth of a community and its care for the environment and for long-term sustainable development.

But while economic growth is a necessary condition for environmental protection, conservation and stability, it is not a sufficient condition. Nor should the sole focus be on economic development. If we are to be good stewards of our society, we need to recognise that some actions need sometimes to be taken in the short term, to establish the conditions for better outcomes in the long term. We need too to be cognisant of actions that taken now might potentially close off better options in the long term. We need to be aware enough in our policy development to consider the possibility, as the Navy might put it, of “fitting for” but not necessarily immediately “fitting with”. If we fail to do this, we are foreclosing options for our children and for their children. We are borrowing – or even, stealing – from our children.

In this election year, we need to ask those standing for election to national office just what is their vision for New Zealand’s future. We have a right to ask for more than worn-out traditional generalities. What, specifically, do parties and candidates have in mind to protect, preserve and advance our specific human condition in New Zealand? What do they intend to do to act as responsible stewards for our society, our people and our environment? On what measures are they prepared to be judged, both by those who put them into office and by those generations still to come?

Governments have an obligation not only to govern for three years; they must also ensure that, at the very least, they do not harm in any way the prospects for our country in years to come.

© Mike7777777 | Dreamstime.com

he focus earlier this year on actions by the Hon Judith Collins, Hon Maurice Williamson and Hon John Banks serves to remind – if indeed a reminder is required – that despite New Zealand’s reputation for probity and good governance, that reputation can very easily be undermined by the actions of individuals. It is largely irrelevant whether such actions are taken with deliberate intent to gain some advantage or benefit or whether – as it seems to me to be most usually the case in New Zealand – they come about because the consequences were insufficiently thought through. We have all done things that “seemed a good idea at the time”.

But over time, the cumulative effect of such actions can become corrosive and erode the social contract that binds the electorate and their elected representatives. As such, it is critically important in our system of government that failings of this kind are brought into the open and appropriately dealt with. We cannot take it for granted that the political consent environment we have now will endure and that the next generation and those beyond will continue to gain benefit from it.

When I went to school, there was little (if any) exposure to what might be called “civics”. It was seemingly expected that we would all absorb the necessary understandings through osmosis. This might have been acceptable at a time when New Zealand was a smaller and more homogenous society than it is now, but I fear that as more and more people from very different backgrounds, religions, social traditions and systems of governance come to call New Zealand “home”, that tacit process of imparting knowledge about the

By IPANZ President John Larkindale

2 Public Sector July/August 2014

And the winner is…the public IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards

By MARGARET MCLACHLAN, IPANZ CONGRATULATIONS to all of the finalists and winners of the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards. The winners were announced on 2 July at a ceremony in Wellington.

Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, presented the supreme Prime Minister’s Award, which went to the New Zealand Police “Prevention First” programme.

When Key announced the winner he said, “These awards are an opportunity to celebrate and reward excellence in New Zealand’s public sector. By celebrating your success we can inspire others. A strong, resilient and innovative public sector is vital for New Zealand’s future.”

The goal of Prevention First is to redirect Police resources so that crime and crash prevention is at the forefront of everything Police do, ultimately enabling them to provide a better service to their communities. At the centre of this is encouraging all staff to look at prevention opportunities as part of their everyday work.

As a result, crime prevention activities have increased by more than 5 per cent – this has led to an increase in visibility of the Police within communities and a 17.5 per cent reduction in crime.

Michael Bush, Deputy Commissioner Police Operations, said as part of the award nomination, “Policing Excellence – with the

Police Model: Prevention First operating strategy at its heart – has delivered a suite of practical and enabling initiatives that provide better services to the public through our frontline officers … we’re now a Police service with a clear focus on crime prevention – driving down crime through a purposeful focus on repeat victims, offenders and locations.”

Overall, Police were successful in four categories, on their own and in partnership with other government agencies.

The awards attracted 77 nominations from 40 different agencies. The list of finalists and winners is available at www.ipanz.org.nz/excellenceawards.

2014 winners by category Improving Public Value through Business Transformation and Prime Minister’s Award • New Zealand Police: Police Model – Prevention First Crown–Māori Relationships • Ministry of Justice: Ngāti Hauā settlement of non-raupatu historical claims Integrity and Trust • Ministry of Education: Leading by backing others to win Improving Performance through Leadership Excellence: Joint winners • New Zealand Police, Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand Defence Force, and Inland Revenue: Transition – a cross-agency leadership development programme • Western Bay of Plenty District Council: Management development programme for middle managers

Digital Government • Department of Internal Affairs: Infrastructure as a service Public Sector Communications • New Zealand Police: Safer Summer – speed enforcement campaign Achieving Collective Impact • Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police, and Department of Corrections: Hutt Valley Justice Sector innovation project Excellence in Regulatory Systems • Environment Canterbury: Alternative environmental justice Poster Award for Excellence in Design of Supporting Poster • Environmental Protection Authority: The Hazardous Substances Toolbox and public awareness campaign

The New Zealand Police’s “Prevention First” programme earned both the supreme Prime Minister’s Award and the Improving Public Value through Business Transformation Award.

July/August 2014 Public Sector 3

GUEST EDITORIAL

Brokering knowledge: Giving science advice to government

By Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor

S

cience does not make policy; it can only inform policy-making.

Moreover, the sophistication of today’s scientific tools and methods mean that science can no longer be thought of as a linear process to identify and fill knowledge gaps on demand, as many policy-makers might hope. But as the nature of science has changed, its capacity to make critical contributions to policy development has also changed. So too has the relationship between science and the rest of society.

Previously, scientific research largely was called upon to focus on relatively linear questions where evidence pointed in fairly clear directions. Today, however, there is a general recognition that the questions for which policy-makers are in greatest need of answers are much more complex and that the science can only ever be characterised as uncertain. Indeed, today’s more advanced and realistic understanding of science is that it is a tool to reduce uncertainties and express probabilities rather than to provide absolute answers.

This shift is due to increased computational power, imaging technologies and more sophisticated methods and models in biological, environmental and social sciences. But it is also the product of a more connected, science-aware (and often sceptical) public that now demands more of its scientists and decision-makers.

Understandably, it is precisely those issues where the science is most complex that governments want answers, and for

which the electorate expects solutions.

These are often the most sensitive policy questions, full of inherent uncertainties and tradeoffs. For instance: How do we best address youth suicide? How can we balance the economic objectives of farming with environmental imperatives?

How should we prepare for the impact of climate change? How do we deal with the obesity epidemic? Common to all of these issues is not only the complexity of the science that can inform them, but also the fact that they involve significant valuesbased judgments – and this is where we must be especially alert.

When science is complex, it is easy to either ignore the important nuances of analysis or to cherry-pick a report that suits preconceived ideas based on values rather than evidence. Neither is a valid position.

Instead, the science community would do well to better convey the concept of “scientific consensus” in the face of uncertain data, while the policy community needs to recognise and be clear about the inevitable inferential gap between what science tells them and the policy decisions that are made.

There can be hubris on both sides of the science-policy relationship, where scientists may be reluctant to admit the limits of their knowledge and policy-makers unwilling to reach for expert advice. Such attitudes need to be addressed. Similarly, we need to recognise and ward against any tendency for either policy-makers or the scientists advising them to become advo-

cates, which is a real risk when someone’s expertise is a product of their passionate commitment to an issue. Such an approach will limit the value of that expertise in the policy process.

To address these issues, governments are increasingly turning to a mix of science advisory models in their effort to establish reliable knowledge brokers. The key role of the knowledge broker is not to be an expert on everything, but to help governments to comprehend what is known, what is not known and the inferential gap that exists between the evidence and the potential courses of action for policy. The knowledge broker – whether an individual advisor, a committee or academy – has a critical role to play in every part of the policy formation process, in ensuring that the options put forward, chosen and implemented reflect best evidence as a primary input into policy decisions.

A clear set of principles should guide science advice to the policy process: independence from political and other value considerations; iterative opportunities for input; the capacity to bridge scientific and policy communities; and maintaining the trust of both.

These issues will be at the core of the first major global conference on this topic, which the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor is hosting in August (www.globalscienceadvice.org).

IPANZ New Professionals Conference THERE’S still time to register for the IPANZ New Professionals Conference coming up in Wellington on 7 and 8 August. With the theme “Navigating change – equipping new professionals for the future”, it’s an event you won’t want to miss.

Speakers include seasoned public servants, as well as up-and-coming voices from the public and private sectors.

Highlights will include: • New Zealand’s response to global change, a panel discussion with John Carnegie (BusinessNZ), Colin James (political commentator) and Lillian Grace (WikiNZ) 4 Public Sector July/August 2014

• current projects and issues in New Zealand that may have long-term impacts, with Fran Wilde, Chair, Greater Wellington Regional Council; Mai Chen, Founding Partner, Chen Palmer; and Kaila Colbin, Founder and CEO, Missing Link • discussions on how public sector professionals can navigate change • an intergenerational panel on the future of the public sector.

An early evening social function on the first day and lunch breaks will provide opportunities for networking. www.ipanz.org.nz/npconference

Is it logical?

© Nigel Spiers | Dreamstime.com

Using evidence in developing social policies

“Social significance requires a much broader range of tools and thinking, including use of other types of evidence, such as qualitative data, circumstantial evidence of social distress and the voices of those whose lives are affected.”

On the surface, evidencebased policy-making is only logical – who could argue with using the best information available to determine a course of action? The rub, of course, is what constitutes the “best information” and how it is extrapolated and used by researchers, policy advisors and decision-makers. SHELLY FARR BISWELL looks at the pitfalls.

L

ed by the United Kingdom, as we entered the 21st century, evidence-based policy-making became identified as the key to effective policy development. By the mid2000s evidence-based policymaking was going to, as the Urban Institute described in 2008, allow us to move “beyond ideology, politics, and guesswork”.

In New Zealand, as Dr Susan St John and Dr Claire Dale discuss in their informative article Evidence-based Evaluation: Working for Families, it became

“fashionable” in the early 2000s to “emphasise the role of evidence and analysis, thus making social science and policy-making appear ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’”.

In the early days, it was assumed by some that the type of evidence needed to support an argument would be readily available. However, Dale and St John explain, “statistical methods designed for an idealised world may rely on some assumptions that make the results questionable”.

They add that sample sizes and taking into account other factors may also affect results, noting that, “In this environment there are many caveats around most evidence-based evaluations”.

The case for quality data With those caveats in place, evidence is an important part of social policy development.

Evidence can be used to define a problem, identify possible ways to address the problem, and consider

the impacts of potential policies.

Key to this, however, is ensuring data collection and analysis is robust.

In June, to “bridge the gap” between researchers, policymakers, and community organisations, the Families Commission hosted the Evidence2Action symposium. Symposium keynote speaker Professor of EvidenceInformed Practice Aron Shlonsky from the University of Melbourne who is also an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto, says there are numerous challenges for using evidence to inform social work, including the number of information sources and the changing state of knowledge.

“One thing that could substantially improve the generation and use of evidence is the systematic and thoughtful use of clinical and services information gathered every day by caseworkers. We need to figure out ways to make this information gathering a useful part of how > July/August 2014 Public Sector 5

Evidence needs not only to be considered at the beginning of the policy development process, but throughout and as part of its evaluation. social workers do their work rather than having data collection limited to a mandatory field completed for compliance purposes. To do that, we need to move toward data systems that are better integrated with direct practice, where there is a systematic rubric for evidence use, review and evaluation in our interactions with clients,” he says.

“That means building better data systems that are intuitive, useful for practitioners, and that can be built in a modular, flexible fashion using secure open source products, and that can be added to and changed over time.

If we can collect usable data at the practice level, the information will be more reliable, valid

and informative for data analytics than what is currently the case.”

Part of a system

In their article, Dale and St John discuss a possible policy development framework. The framework critically includes clarifying the problem at the outset (see box out). The simple question as to how well the policy actually addresses the original problem is often lost sight of in the application of narrow evaluation techniques. The framework requires that outcomes need to be measurable and that at each step of the process value judgements are recognised.

“In any policy, political considerations underpin the selection, definition and interpretation of criteria,” they write.

Conventional technical evaluation of evidence of outcomes may ignore the vital steps of reviewing unintended consequences, weighing up the behavioral or economic model behind the policy section, evaluating the policy against criteria and the original problem. In other words, ensuring evidence

gathering is a built-in part of the whole policy development process. Each aspect of the policy development framework is interdependent on the others and there are other factors that need to be included in the mix.

There is also the wider socioeconomic environment that must be considered. So a policy meant to incentivise work, for example, may seem to be effective when the labour market is strong, but look less effective when there is a lack of jobs.

St John says, “Evidence-based policy-making and evaluation can blind us to what is actually going on. Thus Working for Families, for example, may be judged a success if the evidence shows that it reduced measured child poverty, but who asks the question, reduction of child poverty for which set of poor children? Was it the intent that children in workless families were left out? Is the economics model faulty that led to the policy emphasising work incentives as the way to cure child poverty?”

Evidence needs not only to be

considered at the beginning of the policy development process, but throughout and as part of its evaluation. As Margery Austin Turner of the US-based Urban Institute writes, “In reality, policy development occurs in multiple stages and extends over time. New policies emerge in response to problems and needs, possible approaches are advanced and debated, new policies are adopted and implemented, and established policies are critiqued and refined.”

As our understanding of evidence-based policy has grown, so has our quiver of tools, from random control trials, to analysing data already available, to rolling out policies on a small scale so that results can be evaluated and the policy can be calibrated as required.

But critcally, as St John and Dale note, “Social significance requires a much broader range of tools and thinking, including use of other types of evidence, such as qualitative data, circumstantial evidence of social distress and the voices of those whose lives are affected.”

DR Susan St John and Dr Claire Dale explain there are a number of policy development frameworks, including: • Clarify the problem.

• Set clear objectives for policy.

• Make aims measurable or quantifiable.

• Set out the theories or models that inform policy development.

• Examine a full range of policies that might, according to theory and empirical evidence, achieve the objectives.

• Select the best policy on ground of criteria of cost-effectiveness, economic efficiency, equity and administrative simplicity.

• Implement policy as intended with efficiency and timeliness.

• Measure outcomes.

• Consider unintended consequences.

• Evaluate.

6 Public Sector July/August 2014

© Matthew Fitzpatrick | Dreamstime.com

Policy Development Framework

Living in the Colour-Coded City

Over the past two years, ESR Social Science Researcher Ann Winstanley and a team of scientists and community workers have been involved in research to better understand and build community resilience.

The project, “Living in the Colour-Coded City”, is based on the experiences of Christchurch residents preand post-earthquakes.

“

Part of our work included looking at people’s sense of place and social networks and how they helped with building community resilience,” Winstanley says. “We also examined how people made decisions about risk post-earthquakes and whether those decisions were informed by scientific information.”

Across disciplines

Team members for the project have included geological and geography scientists from the

University of Canterbury (Mark Quigley, Tom Wilson, and David Conradson), social scientists from ESR (Ann Winstanley, Maria Hepi, and David Wood) and Māori researchers and community workers from the Seaview Resilience Centre (Maire Kipa, Regan Potāngaroa, Karen Mills, and Phil Tikao, Positive Directions Trust).

“When studying something like community resilience it’s important to make sure you have expertise across physical, social, and cultural disciplines.

We are looking at how people are affected by their environment with an aim to helping them be informed and make good decisions during events like the earthquakes,” says Winstanley.

“There’s a complexity to this research that requires thinking beyond a single discipline.”

The researchers conducted interviews between November 2012 and April 2014 and involved participants of resi-

dential households and local institutions in the Sydenham/ Beckenham area. Māori researchers from the team worked with Rāpaki whānau and Rāpaki marae-based groups.

The colours

The project’s name is based on the premise that sense of place took on new meaning as technical land zone decisions were announced and what impact those announcements had. For example, nearly 8000 homes over 630 hectares were listed in the Residential Red Zone where repairs or rebuilding was deemed economically unfeasible because of liquefaction. There has been considerable research carried out relating to the Residential Red Zone and its impact on residents and communities, so the project focused, instead, on residents in pockets of the Sydenham/ Beckenham area whose land was ‘blue’ (technical category 3) – at risk of further liquefac-

tion should there be another big earthquake. These residents were faced with difficult decisions about the feasibility (and expense) of repair or rebuild with uncertain timeframes for decision-making and outcomes.

“As researchers, the three key questions have been: 1) What form of social interaction within communities improves resilience for response and recovery after events like earthquakes? 2) How does sense of place contribute to resilience? 3) How can science and technical information be communicated to help household, organisational and collective decision-making? The findings suggest that availability, transparency and timely relevance of information are important,” Winstanley says.

The findings also suggest that people learn to survive and even thrive during trying times.

“People developed tactics to handle all the aftershocks, for example. We dubbed one of >

July/August 2014 Public Sector 7

Some of the lessons learned through the research suggest there are opportunities for policy-makers to reduce conflict between institutions and residents, build constructive forms of social interaction, and improve communication of science and technical information to contribute to community resilience. generation not having a strong identity with their marae, were all important factors to consider as well,” she adds.

The Māori researchers said, on the other hand those who stayed experienced a deeper “historical” connection that seem to reach beyond “death”. The sense within the interviews with Rāpaki residents was that “place” in the Māori disaster perspective was the “intergenerational waka” that protected and carried its occupants through disasters and beyond. Consequently, a key finding from the research is that scientists and governance authorities must include cultural values Māori hold for ancestral land like Rāpaki when developing technical land zone decisions, especially in light of the guarantees to preserve and respect these under provisions in the Treaty of Waitangi and statutes such as the Māori Land Court.

Finding a safe place

Researchers also worked with students, teachers and parents from Beckenham School as part of understanding community resilience. Working in small groups, students in Room 16 used iPods to take photos about the places, people and actions that helped them to feel safe when they were at school during the earthquakes in Christchurch. The students also provided a brief comment about their reasons for taking the photos and what helped them feel safe. Here are a few of their comments: • hand games because they took your mind off what was going on and made you feel safe • Mr Rodger was a great teacher because he was nice and calm and made everyone feel better • friends were calming you down and made you feel 100% • us on the field together makes us feel safe.

Using the results

Funded by the Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment, the project will be completed later this year.

Research findings will complement the Christchurch City Council’s Community Profiling model to build community resilience and well-being. The research will also help policymakers develop useful strategies for communicating science-based information to ensure it is relevant and can be understood by those affected by events like the earthquakes.

“Some of the lessons learned through the research suggest there are opportunities for policy-makers to reduce conflict between institutions and residents, build constructive forms of social interaction, and improve communication of science and technical information to contribute to community resilience,” Winstanley says.

© Ross Becker Photography

those tactics the ‘Geonet game’ where people would try to guess how big an earthquake was, where it had originated, and how deep it was. We found that for many people this was an important coping mechanism and a way for them to have some control over how they gauged their safety in their homes and further afield, and was, most often, a socially interactive process,” she says.

The Māori world view part of the research has been particularly illuminating both in the differences in sense of place and for determining risk.

“Māori researchers in the project found that physical risks – for example, potential rock falls – aren’t always the greatest drivers when assessing risks within the Rāpaki community. There are other cultural risks to consider if one was to leave, such as loss of identity, leaving ancestral homes, and concerns about the next

8 Public Sector July/August 2014

Technocrats or populists: Who gained influence during the Global Financial Crisis?

In May, the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington invited Professor Alasdair Roberts, Suffolk University Law School (Boston, Massachusetts), to discuss the power of technical experts in democracies around the world. Below are excerpts from his presentation.

“

Many scholars of public administration characterise the three decades between 1978 and 2008 as a period when we reconsidered the best way to organise public services.

In fact, the stakes were higher than that. The essential question was an old one: In a democratic system, should power be put in the hands of technocrats, or citizens and their elected representatives? There was certainly a powerful global movement for democratisation during that period. But there was an equally powerful, and ultimately more successful, movement for the shift of power into the hands of technocrats.

The pre-Global Financial Crisis years saw a decisive move toward technocratic governance. For example, regulatory power was put in the hands of independent agencies to provide reassurance to international investors, as was responsibility for the operation of critical ports and airports.

Similarly, other elements of critical infrastructure were handed over to commercial operators.

In many countries, revenue collection became the responsibility of independent bodies, often to reassure foreign creditors that their loans could be repaid. The proposition was that these governmental functions were too important to be left to democratically elected politicians.

The shift toward technocratic governance was most evident in the realm of economic policy. In many countries, finance minis-

tries increased their influence over fiscal policy, and in the ongoing battle between spenders (ministers in line departments) and guardians (finance ministers and budget agencies), the guardians now had the upper hand. And monetary policy was handed over to central bankers. Many countries granted formal independence to their central banks, and the profile and prestige of central bankers grew.

Then came the GFC. Initially, there were several reasons to think that this might signal an end of the movement toward technocratic governance. For example, there was a sharp decline in trade, lessening the pressure for port reform. There was also a decline in foreign investment, lessening the pressure for regulatory reform.

Investor enthusiasm about privately financed infrastructure projects waned as well.

Even in the field of economic policy, technocratic power seemed to weaken. The old battle between guardians and spenders seemed to tilt in favour of spenders, as governments put less emphasis on fiscal discipline and more emphasis on stimulus. At the same time, the credibility of central bankers appeared to be undermined because of their failure (and the failure of the closely aligned community of scholarly economists) to foresee the crisis.

While there was a brief resurgence of popular protest in many countries during this time

(for example, the Occupy movement) there were a number of factors that limited public demonstrations. One major difficulty was the lack of an adequate institutional structure, such as unions, for building a protest movement. In addition, Occupy-style movements, built on leaderless, web-based networks, proved to have limits as vehicles for social mobilisation.

Meanwhile, during this time support for stimulative fiscal policies collapsed. The doctrine of austerity was resurgent, and finance ministries regained their influence over spending ministries. The collapse of support for stimulative fiscal policies was sometimes attributed to doubts about the likely effect of stimulus on economic activity, or fears about the adverse effect of increased public debt.

But this was probably not the main concern of stimulus sceptics. The larger question was whether legislatures would have the backbone to reverse stimulus policies and pay down debt when the economy recovered. There was no way to bind legislators to do this, and good reason to suspect that they would not. So the second-best policy was one of strict controls on spending, even in the moment of crisis.

While legislators hesitated, central bankers acted boldly, with experimental policies such as quantitative easing. Central bankers conceded that they were not sure that quantitative easing would avoid a collapse

or spur recovery. Nor were they sure that the policy of quantitative easing could be ended neatly once the crisis was past.

But they were not deterred by these uncertainties, because the price of inaction seemed unacceptably high. By 2013, central bankers had regained the prestige that they had enjoyed before the crisis.

Today as we look back over the past several years, it appears that the GFC did not alter the power structure that was established during the decades between 1978 and 2008. Technocrats are still in charge, and populists are still in a subordinate position. But this is not an entirely happy outcome. Certainly, we have avoided an even more devastating economic collapse, but citizens in many countries are still deeply dissatisfied with their circumstances. In the United States, for example, it has been more than a decade since a majority of the adult population believed the country was heading in the right direction.

The technocratic mode of governance may have managed its way through the economic crisis, but could still confront a crisis of legitimacy if it cannot address persistent public anxieties about growing economic insecurity and inequality.

For a set of Professor Roberts’ speaking notes from the presentation visit: http://aroberts. us/2014/04/27/technocratsor-populists-who-gained-influence-during-the-financialcrisis/.

”

July/August 2014 Public Sector 9

© Peshkova | Dreamstime.com

Globalisation and sovereignty – can we have both?

Globalisation – it’s one of the defining characteristics of our age. More and more we live in an international, interconnected world. What we do here in New Zealand affects people on the other side of the world – and what they do affects us.

JOHN O’LEARY interviews Dr Inge Kaul of the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin about globalisation and how it challenges public policy.

T

he trouble, says Dr Kaul, is that policy responses to the challenges posed by globalisation remain predominantly national in scope, limiting their capacity to deal with global/transnational issues, such as reducing CO₂ emissions or making cheap drugs available to developing countries.

“Policy-making is still set at the national level, by and large,” says Kaul. “When it comes to making policy appropriate for global issues we have a kind of conceptual blindness. We cling to the notion of national sovereignty, of non-interference and so on, with the result that protecting global public goods, such as the atmosphere or the health of populations in devel10 Public Sector July/August 2014

oping countries, becomes very difficult.

“The only way we can address the global issues that increasingly affect us is by well-thought-out, timely, multi-actor, multi-level interventions. But getting these interventions up and running is hard in a world where nations guard their sovereignty fiercely and often reject any kind of outside intervention.”

to be had from decisive, early intervention.”

“Another thing we could do is forge a consensus on ‘smart sovereignty’, that is, sovereignty which respects the rights of others and works to prevent cross-border spill-overs or limit their damage when they do occur. If we do things right in the first place we can reduce costs enormously.”

The sovereignty paradox

Institutional innovation

The result, says Kaul, is the sovereignty paradox. “We hold on ever more tightly to our notion of national sovereignty at the same time as we are losing it due to forces beyond our national control – think of the GFC [Global Financial Crisis], for example, which started in the United States but went on to envelop most of the developed world. It’s debateable, in such circumstances, how much sovereignty we still have to protect.”

Is it possible to escape the sovereignty paradox?

“Certainly it is,” says Kaul.

“One thing we could do is undertake cost-benefit analysis to establish which population and country groupings will benefit most from international policy cooperation. We also need analysis which shows the gains

All this is well and good, but Kaul adds that we have to innovate at the level of institutions, too.

“There are three things we could do in this area. The first would be to establish a global stewardship council at the United Nations. This would be a permanent standing body composed of representatives from governments, industry and civil society tasked with the job of keeping an eye on the global public domain, which at present is the most undermanaged policy space in the world. This body would consider issues from a global or planetary perspective; it would help nations find mutually agreeable solutions to emerging challenges and work to prevent the kind of reneging on international agreements that is too

Dr Inge Kaul, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.

common at the moment.

“A second thing we could do would be to establish strong global issues departments at the United Nations. These would be headed by a chief executive or similar senior manager; each one would devote itself to researching a particular global challenge or issue or set of issues. It’s my belief that very soon individual nation states would start to create national counterparts to these departments, which would help overcome the current marked divide between domestic and foreign affairs.

“A third thing we could do – and here I am talking mainly to my fellow academics – is develop a theory or concept of global public policy, which at the

moment is almost totally lacking. Developing such a theory or concept of global public policy would help us create, for example, an incentive system to encourage states to act on global public goods and not renege on international agreements.”

All these measures, Kaul stresses, are eminently do-able and could be set in motion even by small countries which traditionally are not seen as having much international clout.

“New Zealand, for example, could ask the United Nations to create a temporary commission to explore the notion of respectful sovereignty, to think through the creation of a global stewardship council, and to suggest the introduction of global issues departments of the kind I have outlined above.”

Such measures are neces-

sary, says Kaul, in a globalised world where we need to combine economic openness with policymaking sovereignty. “Efficient, fair, international cooperation is the best way forward to meet our national interests. These cannot be met if our world descends into crisis and catastrophe, which may happen if we don’t change our way of thinking.

“We can have globalisation and sovereignty. But it’s going to have to be a different, smarter, more respectful kind of sovereignty.”

A video presentation by Dr Kaul on globalisation and sovereignty can be found online at https://vstream.victoria.ac.nz/ ess/echo/presentation/1e9554e26a54-4936-809c-b465d44f0d33/.

Her recent papers on global public policy can be downloaded from http://www.ingekaul.net/.

© Alphaspirit | Dreamstime.com

...The result, says Kaul, is the sovereignty paradox. “We hold on ever more tightly to our notion of national sovereignty at the same time as we are losing it due to forces beyond our national control...”

July/August 2014 Public Sector 11

© Michalgabriel888 | Dreamstime.com

The power of collaboration –

NZTA’s registry system modernisation project Implementing an IT project can be tricky at the best of times, let alone one that conducts well over a million daily transactions at a replacement cost of over $70 million. Yet that is exactly what the New Zealand Transport Agency did – coming in on time and under budget.

CARL BILLINGTON spoke with members of the project team to learn more about their success.

“

There were two key drivers for the modernisation of our registry system – the software it was built on was at an end-of-life stage and would no longer be supported, and we were introducing a new business model,” explains Malcolm McDermott, who joined NZTA’s registry system modernisation project team as project manager just after the approval of the business case in 2011.

“It had been coming for a while, but, a bit like the proverbial frog in the pot, all of a sudden we realised we were near boiling point and had to act. We were trying to transform the way we work with people, but the system was holding us back,” he says.

12 Public Sector July/August 2014

“We provide thousands of transactions every day – driver licences, vehicle licensing, road user charges, and vehicle inspections. Our work affects almost everyone in the country to some degree – we simply can’t afford for the system not to work,” explains Robyn Elston, National Manager Delivery Access and Use. Yet, when the team came to look at the system, they found it was going to cost upwards of $70 million to rebuild. This sort of funding just wasn’t going to be available, which forced the team to rethink their approach.

“In the end, by thinking about it differently, what was initially a $70 million project was resolved for approximately $9 million. By taking some time to think and approaching it collaboratively we came up with a suitable upgrade option instead of a whole system replacement,” Elston says.

“Our attitude was: If we have to do this thing – and we do – then we need to think differently about it.”

For Geoff Dangerfield, Chief Executive for NZTA, this was exactly the right approach: “The project was really about creating a system that allowed us the flexibility to design

“This was an excellent demonstration project for the power of collaboration. Too often IT projects are done in isolation from the business whereas this project – in both design and implementation – showed what can be achieved when everyone unites around a common vision.” and adapt our services for our customers, and, given the rate at which things change, to make adaptation and change affordable.

“Success for me was a system that set us up well for the future and a seamless transition from old to new for our customers,” Dangerfield says.

Elston adds, “Part of the success was because it really was a collective project, we were able to combine all the different perspectives around the table to see the same situation in different ways. It wasn’t just an IT project with IT staff beavering away until they emerged with an idea. We were all involved.”

Keeping the customer at the centre

Malcolm McDermott says one of the key priorities for 2013– 2016 in the new business model is “putting customers at the heart of our business”. As a result, he says there are many new appli-

cations being delivered from a customer viewpoint. “We simply wouldn’t have been able to deliver any of this as quickly, cheaply or easily without the new, open system.”

Elson says, “Our goal is to make compliance so simple that it’s easy for customers to do the right thing. Previously, you could come in and pay for a single vehicle registration, but if you needed to register multiple vehicles or pay for a licence and buy road-user charges it was really complex. The system didn’t allow people to group multiple transactions.”

The new system has meant that NZTA can analyse the different elements of the various services their customers require and identify the common elements within each. These common elements can then be implemented in a reusable way rather than having to build every individual transaction from scratch. This is more efficient and enables a more integrated

approach to online transactions.

“We’re currently in the process of building one payment service which means all products that you purchase will go through a single payment window,” Elston says. “That allows us to start introducing concepts like a shopping cart model. Things like this really make life easier for customers but would have been impossible under the old system. It’s allowing us to move from a product-centric model to a customer-centric model.”

Collaboration breeds success

“We went from a closed, proprietary system to an open source system that gives us access to a worldwide network of developers and experts, and a whole host of new technologies,” Malcolm McDermott says.

“That was a huge shift with enormous implications – not least of all for Unisys who were administering the original, proprietary system for us. They were amazing. They helped us to implement a project that reduced their monthly revenue, as well as opening the system up to other providers. That’s a true test of partnership but they saw the vision and got right behind it.

“We’ve now got a panel of providers we can use to do any of the development, whereas before the system could only be accessed by a single provider. The

new, open system means that it’s possible to have a range of work underway concurrently and we are able to access specialist skillsets and ideas from other providers when needed as well.”

In addition to direct customers, NZTA also works with a number of partners – New Zealand Post, New Zealand Automobile Association, VTNZ and VINZ, in particular – and needed to ensure the new system would work well for them.

“Making it easy for our partners to engage with us was a key part of the project,” Elston says. “We need to consider the implications for them too and consider things we could do that would support their business and the customers who rely on their services. It’s such a critical system – it had to work for everyone.

“Under the new system, we now have the ability to explore things like enabling access to our products and services through the websites and web services of our partner agencies. In the future, you might log on to an agent’s website to book in a service and be able to update your registration at the same time – all in one place. We couldn’t do any of that easily or cheaply under the old system. It’s a huge step forward.”

Success comes in stages

The new system was released over four stages between 28 August

2011 and 26 August 2012.

“That would be one of the key things I’d pass on to any other agency,” says Elston. “The phased approach meant we could launch the system in chunks and learn from and improve on the process each time. It was a great approach, not only from an IT perspective, but it also allowed people to get used to the new system in stages.”

McDermott adds, “At one point we took out the motor vehicle register for an entire weekend, which obviously affected the public. It meant on that Saturday, no one could get a registration or warrant of fitness.”

But for the project team, even that was something that was decided in collaboration.

“We had three possible dates in mind,” Elston says, “so we asked our agents which dates would suit them the best – and they picked the date. For me, this really characterised the inclusive approach to this project.

We didn’t just communicate or consult; we engaged with our stakeholders and made decisions with them.

“In the end, we took the motor vehicle register down for a weekend and nobody, I mean nobody, complained. We never treated this as just an IT project – right from the start we saw this as a business continuity project: we had to get this right or nothing else could continue.”

Accepting the 2013 Networked Government Award from NZTA were (from left to right): Rex Dobson, Unisys Programme Manager; Malcolm McDermott, Project Manager; Craig Soutar, Chief Information Officer; Allan Frost, General Manager Organisational Support; Geoff Dangerfield, Chief Executive; Christian Hayes, Programme Manager. The award was given by Microsoft Public Service Director Jeff Healey (far right).

Looking back and looking ahead

“In our risk analysis, this project had all the hallmarks of a highrisk project that could fail to deliver. Yet it came in on time, under budget and all of its benefits were being realised in the first year of its delivery,” Elston says.

“Projects occasionally get treated as a dumping ground for people who aren’t fitting into their day jobs. That was never the case here. We had the organisation’s full support with the best expertise and experience made available to the project.

“As a result, the success of this initiative has given everyone permission for the same sort of thinking and approach. It’s just become the way we do things now. Working in collaboration, with the customer at the centre, has become part of our DNA now.”

Dangerfield agrees, “This was an excellent demonstration project for the power of collaboration. Too often IT projects are done in isolation from the business whereas this project – in both design and implementation – showed what can be achieved when everyone unites around a common vision.”

About the sponsor Microsoft is proud to support the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards through its sponsorship of the Networked Government category.

Microsoft’s goal is to support government agencies’ use of information technology to enhance productivity, innovate, strengthen their connection with the New Zealand citizens that they serve, and improve the quality of services delivered.

July/August 2014 Public Sector 13

Political sentiments –

the future of the public sector Public Sector asked several of New Zealand’s political parties – National, Labour, Green, NZ First and Māori – to provide a brief statement on what they see as the future of the public sector. Below are their responses.

National Party statement

By Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Minister of State Services THE National-led Government is committed to tackling the difficult issues that matter to New Zealanders.

The public service has a fundamental role to play in addressing complex longterm problems, such as reducing crime rates and reoffending, increasing infant immunisation rates, and increasing the number of young people with education qualifications.

The Better Public Services Results update shows we are getting good traction in a number of areas, but challenges remain in achieving these ambitious goals. The public service has the tools in place to deliver these results with the new State Sector Act which was the biggest transformation to the public service in a generation.

The public service is demonstrating it can deliver better results by increasing collaboration, adopting innovative ideas, and taking risks, and finding more

efficient ways of working.

The Kiwis Count survey gives us a regular measure of how well the public rates us in a range of government services. Overall satisfaction in the public service remains high, and New Zealanders’ trust in public servants to do what is right has increased markedly under this Government.

The Government has also focused on rebalancing the public service from the back office to the frontline. Under the previous Labour government, public service numbers rose considerably – we introduced a cap on core government administration positions in 2008 which we continue to maintain.

Our public service is highly regarded.

There is a great depth of experience and expertise. The Government is committed to developing talent and leadership, and the creation of a new Chief Talent Officer will help drive this forward.

We are focused on improving privacy and security across government, and strengthening the role of the Government Chief Information Hon Dr Jonathan Officer. We are Coleman, Minister of developing our State Services. online services to make them more accessible and easier to use. New Zealanders increasingly expect to be able to access public services online.

Our public service needs to continue the momentum in these areas so it can deliver the services that New Zealanders expect and deserve.

Labour Party statement LABOUR sees a need to review the wider state sector and the legislation which governs it. It has been over 100 years since the Hunt Royal Commission laid down first principles for the operation of a corruption-free, neutral, professional public service and it is high time that the exercise was repeated in our view.

New Zealand has been well served by its public service for a long time.

Reforms have come along periodically which have altered its focus or direction more or less usefully. Last year’s ranking by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index as first equal with Denmark was almost solely a judgement on the integrity of our public service. But this precious reputation requires constant vigilance and maintenance.

14 Public Sector July/August 2014

We need a public service which is not afraid to give free and frank advice. We need a public service which understands both of those words – public and service. And we need a public service which understands its dual role of implementing the programme of the democratically elected government of the day and protecting New Zealand citizens from the inappropriate exercise of power by the country’s Executive.

A modern, fit-for-purpose state sector is essential for 21st century governance.

It must attract our brightest and best to manage, create, innovate, serve and inspire. It must be led by people of integrity who are not easily intimidated and who have a strong public service ethic. It needs to link up its efforts in order to provide increasingly complex

services to New Zealanders across departments with greater effectiveness. It must have the capacity and capability to do Hon Maryan Street, research and Labour Spokesperson provide innovative on State Services. solutions to modern problems. And it must be maintained as a critical part of our democratic apparatus which serves and protects New Zealand citizens.

That is the future Labour wants for New Zealand’s public sector.

Photo: charleschauvelmp

By Hon Maryan Street, Labour Spokesperson on State Services

Green Party statement

By Denise Roche MP, Green Spokesperson for Industrial Relations THE Green Party supports strengthening the public sector to more effectively deliver services to New Zealanders. We believe the concerted attacks on the public service are part of an overall agenda to discredit the public sector and shrink the state and hand as much of the public sector as possible to the private sector. We are opposed to this agenda.

The Green Party has no intention of privatising or partly privatising any public sector entities. We also oppose the entry of the private sector into accident compensation.

The Green Party will introduce a new framework for state sector collective bargaining, requiring a more consistent approach to human resources practice in the public service and moving management practices away from competitive models that tend to cause divisiveness

and inefficiency towards a more cohesive model.

The government needs to make expectations clear to public service employers that collective bargaining parameters are promoted to ensure transparent and fair pay systems and acknowledge the important role unions play in collective bargaining.

We wish to build collaborative public sector workplaces and principled partnership arrangements where workers have a real input in decisions supported by a more standard, consistent approach to HR and employment relations.

We would also strengthen the ability of unions to prevent passing on of terms and conditions reached through collective bargaining to those who are not union members in order to prevent freeloading and more adequately support collective bargaining. A bargaining fee is appropriate

but should be linked to 90 per cent of the applicable union fee, rather than a one-off fee.

Denise Roche MP, The Green Spokesperson for Greens Industrial Relations. would also tackle the gender pay gap. We intend to establish a Pay and Employment Equity Commission to collect, collate and analyse data on pay and employment equity; educate and inform employers and employees on pay equity; and report annual progress on reducing the gender and ethnicity pay gap.

New Zealand First Party statement

By Denis O’Rourke MP, New Zealand First Spokesperson on State Services WE acknowledge the diversity, professionalism and integrity of the New Zealand public service; and we hold these values above all others for our public service organisations: independence and freedom from corruption. We wish to see these supported by a sound strategy constantly reviewed in consultation with stakeholders and the public generally.

New Zealand First also seeks effective and frugal, as well as efficient and wellmanaged public service departments and organisations, employing well-trained staff who are fairly remunerated and appointed on merit without any form of discrimination (including age discrimination), and which are well resourced, technically competent and future oriented.

New Zealand First undertakes that our public services will be free from the threat of privatisation, outsourcing and commercialisation. However, where in the public

interest, New Zealand First will encourage new ways in which public service entities can collaborate and partner with private interests, provided this can be achieved without compromising the roles and functions and the integrity of the public service organisations concerned. Public service advisers will be encouraged to give full and frank information to ministers. We will act to ensure that the quality of public services is maintained and enhanced in all cities, towns, regions and communities in the country. We will not allow the services people and communities need, to be run down in pursuit of cost cutting.

We expect public service organisations to have a clear understanding of mission, roles, functions, powers, limitations and priorities, and to have a culture which is customer oriented while maintaining the traditional public service values of respect, tolerance and helpfulness, putting people

before money, and being fair while objectively administering regulatory powers Denis O’Rourke MP, and spendNew Zealand First ing public Spokesperson on State Services. money.

We want the public service to be open, accountable and transparent as far as appropriate in dealings with the public, and to be protective of private information. We want the public of New Zealand to understand and respect the role of the public service and to support its activities. >

July/August 2014 Public Sector 15

Political sentiments –

the future of the public sector continued Māori Party statement

By Te Ururoa Flavell MP, Co-leader of the Māori Party WHAT is the most important thing in this world? It is people, it is people. The Māori Party wants to see people at its centre of the public sector.

Rather than be bound to an institutional framework which has the various arms of public administration working in isolation, we want more emphasis on collaboration and coordination. In essence that is Whānau Ora – the sectors and silos coming together, to be driven by the aspirations and priorities of families.

We want a public sector which aligns communities of interest. We want an interactive, creative, and networked public sector that emphasises connectivity. We see increased trust and confidence from the public as a by-product of increased connectivity.

We want people to feel valued.

Recognition of attachment to place, as a characteristic of identity in Aotearoa, will

be reflected in the public sector of the future. Rather than central control, public administration will emphasise placebased management and durable local decision-making through co-design and co-production. At the local level, there will be consistency across plans, by-laws, and back-office activity.

Governance culture will reflect Māori identity more. With an emphasis on locally driven administration, local Māori knowledge is essential for long-term strategic gain. Good management practice will be enhanced by a more Māori approach to relationship-building and reciprocity, supported by a workforce versed in the value of kaupapa Māori. Basic tikanga and te reo Māori competencies will be the rule within the public sector, not the exception.

The public sector will set the benchmark for employment outcomes which reflect equal citizenship rights across age, gender

and culture in local and central administration; it will implicitly embody the values of te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We will moniTe Ururoa Flavell MP, Co-leader of the tor cultural Māori Party. competency in all agencies to ensure the quality of services, and equity of access and outcomes to bring out well-being. Chief executives will be required to report six monthly on how they are progressing positive outcomes for whānau. Cultural competency will be an employment standard in justice, health, education and social services.

Regulatory environment

T

he Productivity Commission has just published Regulatory institutions and practices. The publication provides guidance on how to improve the design of new regulatory regimes and recommends ways to improve the performance of our overall regulatory system.

As the Productivity Commission notes in the report’s summary, “New Zealand has a large and complex regulatory system, with as many as 200 different regimes, a large number of regulatory agencies, and more than 10,000 people employed in administering regulation”. We also have a growing number of regulations with an average of 100 to 150 Acts along with about 350 legislative instruments passed each year since the 1990s.

Researchers found that quality checks for new regulations, including Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee and the Law Commission, are currently under resourced. In some instances, this situation has led to declining quality.

Existing regulation in New Zealand often becomes obsolete. The Productivity Commission surveyed regulator chief executives and found that two-thirds of those surveyed reported that agencies often work with legislation that is outdated or not fit for purpose. As the commission reports, “As a result, regulators can be hamstrung,

16 Public Sector July/August 2014

unable to respond to emerging problems or imposing unnecessary costs”.

In addition, for existing regulations, while the Government has introduced initiatives to improve the review of regulations, the commission found that New Zealand does not use some techniques that have been found to be effective overseas.

The report identifies a number of areas where New Zealand can improve its regulatory environment, including better leadership from ministers and central agencies, particularly The Treasury, better-run appointment processes for regulator boards, and a system of peer reviews where senior regulatory leaders would examine and provide feedback to regulators. www.productivity.govt.nz

IPANZ news

IPANZ NEWS

Promoting informed debate: Privacy and information sharing

By MARGARET MCLACHLAN IPANZ Communications Adviser

A

s government service delivery becomes more integrated, citizens will want to interact more with government online, but with access comes some risk, says Government’s Chief Information Officer Colin MacDonald. “It is a case of managing risk, not avoiding it,” MacDonald says.

He was speaking at one of two IPANZ panel discussions held in May to explore the issues of privacy and government agency information sharing.

He said that government agencies hold huge amounts of personal information about New Zealand citizens and are increasingly using information matching to be more efficient, to save money and to deliver better services. But with this comes a great responsibility to protect personal information and use it wisely. At risk, when things go wrong, is the loss of trust by citizens in government.

Suzanne Snively, Chair of Transparency International New Zealand, said governments should be looking at the opportunities offered by data collection.

Privacy discussion panellists: Colin MacDonald, Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs and Government Chief Information Officer; Suzanne Snively, Chair of Transparency International New Zealand; and freelance journalist Keith Ng. “In future economies, data will be more important than money. We need to be thinking in a more open-minded way and open up discussion to find ways to harvest benefits to increase the prosperity of our country.”

An interesting viewpoint was provided by journalist Keith Ng. He was the blogger who exposed the issue with the Work and Income kiosks, namely that public-facing service kiosks were connected to the Ministry of Social Development’s corporate network.

Ng told the audience he has mixed feelings about the effect of that story. “Some

people lost faith in the public service and MSD started building over-engineered systems, but at a broader level things have got better.”

He urged the public servants present to consider their role: “You can do things the easy way, or the hilarious way. As data guardians, beware of the incidental; the sensitive and personal information that may be stuck to the side of the pipe.”

Suzanne Snively said the WINZ kiosk case made a huge difference to the approach to risk management by government. But she warned that the media is a weak link in New Zealand’s national integrity system as it focuses on mistakes made by government, but lacks the resources to analyse issues in-depth.

The second discussion considered what the price is of privacy and included John Edwards, Privacy Commissioner; Dr Michael Macaulay, from the School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington; and David Farrar, political commentator and blogger.

Read more at: www.ipanz.org.nz > knowledge hub > seminar presentations > Wellington 2014.

A fresh perspective: Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowship seminar series JOIN US for this year’s Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowship seminar series.

The seminar series is jointly presented

by IPANZ, the School of Government at Victoria University of Wellington and Fulbright New Zealand.

The Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy programme offers outstanding American professionals the opportunity to gain experience in public policy in New Zealand, and to gain firsthand knowledge of economic, social and political reforms, and management of the government sector. The programme has three goals: to reinforce links between New Zealand and the United States; to improve public policy practice in both countries by the cross-fertilisation of ideas and experience; and to build an ongoing network of public policy experts on both sides of the Pacific.

Below is a brief summary of each seminar in the series. All seminars will be held in the Nau Mai Room, Te Puni Kōkiri House, 143 Lambton Quay, Wellington.

☼☼ ROSEMARY O'LEARY’S seminar is entitled “Collaborative Governance in New Zealand: Important Decisions Ahead”. O’Leary is a consultant with Rosemary O'Leary and Associates and Distinguished Professor with the University of Kansas. She has been based as an Axford Fellow at the State Services Commission.

Date: 11 August 2014 Time: 1.00pm to 2.00pm ☼☼ BENJAMIN RILEY’S seminar will be on “Science, Data and Decisions in New Zealand's Education System”. Riley is Director of Policy at New Schools Venture Fund, Washington DC, and has been based as an Axford Fellow at the Ministry of Education.

Date: 18 August 2014 Time: 12:30pm to 1:30pm ☼☼ JODY MCBRIEN’S presentation is called “I Orea Te Tuatara Ka Patu Ki Waho: Competing Priorities in the New Zealand Refugee Resettlement Strategy”.

McBrien is an Associate Professor at the University of South Florida. She has been based as an Axford Fellow at Immigration New Zealand at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Date: 19 August 2014 Time: 12:30pm to 1:30pm

The seminars are free and open to the public. To register visit www.ipanz.org.nz.

July/August 2014 Public Sector 17

Companies Office gets tough on overseas criminal organisations New Zealand’s reputation as the easiest country in the world to start a business is good news for entrepreneurs, but it has also been a green light for some overseas organisations to form New Zealand companies for criminal use. MARGARET MCLACHLAN reports.

I

n 2010, the New Zealand Companies Office realised it needed to crack down on the establishment of New Zealand companies as a cover for criminal activity. To accomplish this, the Companies Office Registries, Integrity and Enforcement Team was set up and in 2013 won the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Award in the Integrity and Trust category.

Companies Office Registries Integrity and Enforcement Manager Karla Flood says, “The team was set up to protect New Zealand’s corporate reputation by striking a balance between deterring the activities that

threaten the integrity of New Zealand’s company registration system and maintaining the ease of doing business.”

In the World Bank annual Ease of Doing Business survey of 189 countries, New Zealand is ranked first in the world for starting a business and third in the world for the ease of doing business. New Zealand’s ranking is partly attributable to simple and effective procedures and processes delivered via an online registry service. Unfortunately, the ease of setting up a company also attracted some overseas organisations wanting a corporate legal entity to undertake criminal activity.

Case of misuse

A high-profile case of misuse occurred in 2009. SP Trading Limited, a company incorporated in New Zealand, hired a plane that was discovered at Bangkok airport, carrying 30 tonnes of weapons from North Korea,

most likely bound for Iran.

Flood says, “The scale of the problem is relatively limited, equating to approximately only one per cent of all registered companies; however, fighting this sort of activity is important to the integrity of New Zealand’s corporate environment.”

Over 6300 companies have been removed from the Companies Office register for non-compliance and 462 company incorporation applications have not proceeded to registration after further registration documents were requested.

“Where an application to register a company or add directors meets certain criteria,

MBIE officials receiving the Integrity and Trust Award from Justice Minister Judith Collins (far left) are from left to right: Liz MacPherson, former Deputy Chief Executive (now Statistics New Zealand Chief Executive); Mandy McDonald, General Manager Business Integrity Services; Lawrence Wells, National Manager, Business Registries; and Karla Flood, Manager, Registries Integrity and Enforcement, Companies Office.

18 Public Sector July/August 2014

the Companies Office will require additional evidence, such as the director and shareholder’s original consent form, proof of residency and proof of identity,” Flood says.

Tools for integrity

Some of the tools used by the team to ensure integrity of an application include site visits to registered offices, review of incorporation applications and intelligence gathering.

Investigations can reveal deliberate errors, for example, an electricity bill given as proof of residency that has no units of power listed.

About 85 company formation agents have been affected by the requirements. The numbers for the top three agents incorporating companies in New Zealand have been dropping steadily, from 865 companies incorporated by these agents in 2010, to 23 in 2012. Flood says this demonstrates the effectiveness of the document verification system.

“Most people wanting to register companies aren’t affected by the processes. Those who are creating companies for legitimate business reasons in New Zealand are able to form a company, quickly enabling them to get on with growing New Zealand’s economy.”

© Yu Jess | Dreamstime.com

Deputy Chief Executive of Market Services, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Greg Patchell, says, “The Registries Integrity and Enforcement Team within MBIE is working extremely hard to protect New Zealand’s corporate reputation, as well as maintaining a high level of trust and confidence within the business community.

“It is no accident that the World Bank has ranked New Zealand so high in its annual Ease of Doing Business report. The Companies Office is making a significant contribution

to the Government’s Better Public Services for business [Result 9] programme, by making it easier to do business with government, through the provision of its world-class online registration system.”

Another initiative of the team is the review of all entity applications for registrations as a financial service provider. This is to ensure that applicants are complying with the registration requirements set out in the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. In particular, the registrar ensures that the

applicant has a place of business in New Zealand.

Since the process began, 143 financial service provider applications did not proceed to registration.

All of these measures form part of the Government’s approach to strengthening resistance to organised crime.

The Companies Amendment Act (No 4) 2014 and Limited Partnerships Amendment Act 2014 that both passed into law in late June, amongst other things, strengthen the rules applying to the registration of companies and limited partnerships and enhance the powers of the registrar of companies.

The Companies Office maintains links with counterparts internationally. It is a foundation member of the Corporate Registrars Forum, a global body of corporate and security market registrars and administrators. It is also a member of two other similar bodies, the International Association of Commercial Administrators and the European Corporate Registers Forum.

Michael Brosnahan, Registry Services Manager, says, “Through these memberships and established memorandums, we are able to collaboratively work and share information with over 100 corporate and security market registrars and administrators.”

About the sponsor

The concepts of integrity and trust are critical to justice and to New Zealand’s justice institutions. The Justice Sector, which includes the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police, Department of Corrections, Crown Law and the Serious Fraud Office, sponsors the Integrity and Trust award to recognise the trust New Zealanders place in the work done by all public servants. This award recognises agencies that demonstrate the highest standards of integrity and a commitment to building trust with the people and communities they serve, in ways that go beyond their everyday obligations.

Victoria Professional and Executive Development High quality professional and executive development courses to enhance the capability of your organisation. A selection of the courses coming up in the second half of the year.

The Leadership Accelerator: Unlocking the critical competencies for leadership effectiveness

Cultural Intelligence: Effective Interactions in the Global Economy

-> Starts 29 July (4 days over 4 months)

-> Monday 13 October, 9am–4.30pm

Aspire: Women’s Leadership Development Programme

The Ageing Workforce: A Strategic Approach

-> Starts Thursday 7 August (8 half-days over 4 months)

Short Courses MARCH TO DECEMB

ER 2014

Victoria Professional and Executive Devel opment

-> Wednesday 15 October, 9am–4.30pm

Machinery of Government

-> Wednesday 22 October, May, 9am–4pm

Strategic Thinking and Analysis for Managers -> Monday 4 & Tuesday 5 August, 9am–4.30pm

We also deliver in-house courses, can customise existing courses or design new programmes to suit your requirements.

For course dates, further information and to enrol visit www.victoria.ac.nz/profdev or call us on 04 463 6556.

MAKE NEW CONNECTIONS

Our latest 2014 short course catalogue is out now. View it online at www.victoria.ac.nz/profdev

July/August 2014 Public Sector 19

OBITUARY

A life of service: Kenneth William Piddington (1933–2014)

F

By John R Martin

ew public servants in the post-war era have made such a significant contribution in so many fields or shown more vision that Ken Piddington. Tragically, Ken was killed in a motor accident near Sanson on 28 February 2014, while en route to his eco-friendly property on Mount Ruapehu.

Born in London to Australian parents, Ken Piddington attended 12 schools in the United Kingdom and Australia before his father took up an appointment as the first professor of anthropology at Auckland University. After graduating in languages from Auckland University, Ken taught briefly before joining the Department of External Affairs in Paris in 1959. After a short period in Wellington (including a spell of secondment to the Treasury) Ken took up his first overseas postings in Brussels and London.

In1972, following a period in Geneva during the GATT Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, Ken became the Deputy Director of the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC), set up in Suva by the recently formed Pacific Islands Forum to facilitate member cooperation on trade, tourism, transportation, and economic development. Ken made a strong contribution to fostering the beginnings of a regional consciousness in the Pacific.

Back in Wellington, in April 1976 Ken was seconded from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to a task force charged, under the leadership of Sir Frank Holmes, to “study previous experience with planning in New Zealand and to recommend an institutional framework to meet present-day requirements for planning”. In May 1977, the New Zealand Planning Council (NZPC) proposed by the task force held its first meet-

ing. Chaired by Sir Frank, the NZPC had a diverse membership and was advised by a secretariat led by Ken Piddington. Over the next two years, the NZPC reviewed a wide range of issues and published a number of noteworthy reports. Of special significance to Ken – fluent in te reo Māori – was the contribution of the Council to the changing place of Māori in the New Zealand community and public policy.

In 1979, Ken Piddington was appointed to head the Commission for the Environment, a position in which he was to serve for six years. The substantial role that he was to play in issues about conservation and a sustainable New Zealand (and global) environment had begun.

On 1 April 1987, New Zealand’s environmental administration was radically changed. Piddington was appointed as the first Director-General of Conservation at the head of a department, bringing together the natural resource management functions of Lands and Survey, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Forest Service and Internal Affairs. The Director-General carried responsibility for around 2000 staff – eight regions and 34 districts – and 30 per cent of New Zealand’s land area. This formidable administrative task, constrained by a reduced budget, was approached by Piddington and his colleagues “with missionary zeal with one arm behind its back …”.

He was explicit that the new department “would shake off the baggage of its parent agencies”.

In 1988, Piddington was headhunted for the newly created position of Director of the Environment Department at the World Bank (the International Bank for Reconstruction

Taking the pulse of local government in New Zealand

A

report, based on the findings of a recent survey, identifies what mayors and chairs of local authorities think are the major issues facing their communities and organisations.

Commissioned by Simpson Grierson and Local Government New Zealand, the report reveals a number of key findings, including that 84 per cent of those surveyed said economic growth and job creation are by far the most important concerns for mayors and chairs.

The survey was conducted in June 2014. Responses were received from mayors and chairs of 62 rural, provincial, metropolitan and regional councils throughout New Zealand, a response rate of nearly 80 per cent. www.simpsongrierson.com/taking-the-pulse-of-local-government

20 Public Sector July/August 2014

and Development) in Washington DC. An important development with which Piddington was closely associated was the creation of the Global Environmental Facility to provide funding for global environmental concerns.

After his “retirement” to New Zealand in 1994, Piddington became actively involved in energy and climate change issues, first as Adjunct Professor at Waikato University (where he did considerable work on resourceuse taxation) and then as a senior associate of the Institute of Policy Studies.

He was an active and respected participant in the Institute of Policy Studies – he acted as IPS coordinator for the successful conference Climate Change and Governance: Critical Issues for New Zealand and the Pacific in March 2006 and edited the first two editions of the IPS Policy Quarterly.

Ken Piddington maintained his links with the international environmental scene, taking part in successive regional UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) meetings of South Pacific and South East Asian heads of environment and conservation departments.

At the centre of his life was his family: his wife, Pam (who died in 2006), Graham, Karl, Rosalie and their families. IPANZ extends to them our sincere sympathy. Ken Piddington is warmly remembered for an outstanding contribution to public welfare in New Zealand and abroad and is sadly missed.

This is an abridged version of an obituary that appeared in the Policy Quarterly (IGPS) Vol. 10, Issue 2 May 2014 (pp.73–75).

Communications:

The four essential steps to best practice

W

By Shelly Farr Biswell, Editor hile I am fortunate enough to be the editor of Public Sector journal, my day job is as a communications consultant for various public and non-governmental organisations.

What other communications professionals and I have often discussed is the need for a guide for communications advisors within the New Zealand context.

Fortunately, that guide has just been published. Communications: The four essential steps to best practice is a considered and practical how-to guide by wellrespected communications professional Patricia Donovan.

The book is full of useful information for communications

professionals no matter where they are on their career path – from recent graduates to seasoned veterans. It’s also a handy reference tool for managers and others with an interest in getting the most from communications, stakeholder engagement and reputation management.

Donovan has had a lengthy career in communications both in the public and private sectors. In this book, she has distilled what she has learned over the years into four steps: • have the right attitude • think strategically • act like a leader • work systematically.

Her insights into each of these steps are helpful and include how-to approaches to take what you learn and put it into action.

The book is also

confirmation that good communications – and good communications advisors – play an important role in any organisation. As she notes in her introduction: “Never think of communications as ‘business as usual’, doing this year what you did last year. It isn’t. Bestpractice communications are both transactional and transformational. To be effective, you must be strategic: always thinking ahead, challenging the norm, coming up with new ways of doing things.”

Several years ago I had the privilege of working for Donovan at a government ministry. I learned to value her principled approach to communications and her ability to quickly and methodically assess an

Patricia Donovan, author of Communications: The four essential steps to best practice.

issue before determining the best course of action. For that reason, it gives me great pleasure to see that through this publication she can introduce others to many of the same lessons I learned from her.

As Richard Stone, Executive Chair, JacksonStone and Partners says about the book, “One of the most pragmatic and comprehensive references I’ve seen and an excellent resource for those who recognise the importance of communication and reputation management”.

Published by Dunmore Publishing.

WE’RE SHOWCASING OUR AMAZING CITY AND ALL IT HAS TO OFFER, UNDER ONE INSPIRATIONAL ROOF! Come and explore our unconventional conventions expo, meet the best of the best and find out what makes Wellington and our region the coolest place to host your next event.

DIARY THIS DATE THURSDAY 7 AUGUST 9AM - 4.30PM

TSB BANK ARENA & SHED 6

TSB BANK ARENA & SHED 6

REGISTER

NOW PWV.CO.NZ/SHOW-ME-WELLINGTON

July/August 2014 Public Sector 21

The Big Smoke: A conversation with Auckland Council Chief Executive Stephen Town

S

tephen Town has come a long way since he walked out of Wellington College six weeks into seventh form. Three decades later he is local government’s most powerful public servant, chief executive of Auckland Council, responsible for a staff of 8000, seven council-controlled organisations and an annual budget of $3 billion.

Six months into the job, Town seems remarkably calm given the daunting issues facing the country’s largest and fastest growing region – traffic congestion, a lack of affordable housing, council politics, and disagreements with central government around timing and funding for major infrastructure projects. But for a man who likes to be in charge, it’s the perfect job writes ROSE NORTHCOTT who interviewed the 54-year-old Town.

What did you do after walking out the school gates?

I went and got myself a job – there was so much choice in the early 80s. In my 20s I studied part-time and got myself a management diploma and in my late 20s I did an MBA part-time.

In 1998, after 10 years in the education sector you made the move into local government as chief executive of Franklin District Council.

What prompted that?

I fell by accident into local government.

Education wasn’t a sector I wanted to stay in and I was on the lookout for a chief executive role. I’d been Wanganui Polytechnic chief executive for four years and knew I loved being in that leadership role. I looked for where I could go and what sector might welcome my sort of approach.

22 Public Sector July/August 2014

Four years later you made the move to chief executive of Tauranga District Council, with responsibility for the country’s sixth largest city.

That sounds like a big step up?

Franklin was a big rural district with 50,000 people and lots of lifestyle blocks.

In Tauranga City everything was twice as big and twice as fast. And Tauranga is an intensely urban area. I did wonder when I landed there whether I could make the step up – it felt like a very big step. Tauranga was growing very fast in the six years until the GFC [Global Financial Crisis] and I was there right through that time.

You were deemed very successful.

What were your main achievements?

If you’ve been to Tauranga, you will find the transport infrastructure is very good. A lot of it was planned before I arrived, we simply carried out that plan. A key was that the region worked very collaboratively on those big issues and big investments. You don’t collaborate just to make people feel good – you’ve got to bring a results focus to it.

Collaboration is damn hard work and you’ve got to do it every day. Tauranga was an inversion of how it happened in Auckland.

We had very strong regional leadership that supported getting the big things across the line. The second achievement was getting some of the long overdue community facilities built.

Is it important to know when to leave a job?

When they appointed me in Tauranga I said I think this is a seven-year assignment.

I stayed eight and I think we were both ready to part company. In local government you mustn’t overstay your welcome or you end up in a repetition cycle. They need fresh legs and you need to take on fresh challenges. There’s been a lot of debate in the sector about the contractual nature of

local government chief executives. I think the limit on tenure is a positive thing, for the sector, it’s healthy.

Your next move was to Auckland as the New Zealand Transport Agency Northern Regional Director. Why that role?

I wanted to be either in Auckland or Wellington so that I would be visible. It wasn’t specifically to chase a particular role, but to get myself back in view of the people who recruit into those cities and get in front of people who knew me when I was in Franklin but may have forgotten me. It was the perfect role. I’d done a lot of infrastructure work in Bay of Plenty

comfortable to follow me and then for me to walk slightly behind them and let them know I’m there to support them. I have a very strong commitment that it is about a team of people doing great things, not about one person doing it on their own and hogging the limelight. This role is a perfect case study of that philosophy. I could never do it on my own. We’ve got 8000 staff across the group; there have got to be people – a whole lot of people – leading right through the organisation not just at the top.

What are your priorities?

There are four. First is to build a positive culture in our huge organisation that really faces our citizens and customers and visitors.

It’s got to be visible.

Second is to try and get more cohesion amongst the group of council families – the seven CCOs. The third is building partnerships with central government, and business and communities in Auckland. That whole notion of doing these things together and engaging and creating success.

The fourth is getting things done efficiently. We’ve got enormous potential to be more successful if we can harness the right priorities and better allocate how people spend their time.

Why is it so important to get it right in Auckland?

and collaboration. That role was very much pitched to support the success of Auckland transport and reflected NZTA trying to get a much deeper relationship with its local government partners. It turned out to be a really good stepping stone into my current job. I made good relationships and spent a lot of time with Auckland leaders so people were able to remind themselves of the kind of person I am.

Auckland is unique in the New Zealand context; it’s an incredibly young city and incredibly diverse. It’s these things that start to encourage people to accept that Auckland is different. And because we make up one-third of the population and a bit over one-third of GDP, what happens in Auckland really does matter in New Zealand.

There is a new vibrancy in Auckland and confidence of Aucklanders themselves – in a positive way, not conceited. Just recognising that we’ve come out of the difficulties of the GFC and Auckland and New Zealand are well positioned to do even better.

How would you describe yourself – ambitious?

How do you manage working in an intensely political environment?

I’m sure some people would use that word.

My take on myself is that I enjoy leading people, no doubt about that, and being in charge helps! I like to get people to be really

I have said this before, it is really important that council chief executives and senior staff need to observe and understand politics and then make sure they don’t start

Stephen Town, Chief Executive, Auckland Council. participating in it. You need to be relied on by your councils and mayor to offer them sound advice and do that without fear or favour and build confidence and trust that you will turn up in that manner every day. I think generally local government is in good shape in regards of giving free and frank advice. There are tensions because of the very nature of coming together of professional organisations interfacing with elected political officials, but that’s not a bad thing.

And with central government?

I think there is room for better conversations between central and local government about what good regulation looks like and how can we ensure that we think about that and be clear about what we are trying to achieve before we do things.

I think relationships are critical and in Auckland those relationships have a good grounding. I play a key role in connecting with the chief executives of the big public service departments. We are having discussions at the moment about how we can take that collaboration to a strong and more active level in the next three years. That connection and closer cooperation has to flow through all our organisations.

It’s a big job. What do you get out of it?

I feel privileged to have the opportunity to be in a leadership role that is this significant.

What you get out of it is being able to create that team of new leaders and existing leaders who help share the leadership load with you. You end up feeling like you are part of a high-energy, high-performing organisation. That’s what we are aiming for. If you see those results come through your performance and the track record of the organisation, that’s a pretty neat thing to be part of.

July/August 2014 Public Sector 23

POINT OF VIEW

Science and its privilege in the policy arena

By Professor Shaun Hendy

24 Public Sector July/August 2014

If one accepts that science comes with values, then one must also accept that these will not always align with the values of those who employ their services. In Canada, the ability of government scientists to comment openly on scientific issues has been tightly constrained. Closer to home, the commercial and political interests of the Crown research institutes have not always been reconciled easily with the principles of open debate that underpin the scientific method. In the worst case, the scientific values that underpin good scientific advice can be undermined or become distorted.

In these circumstances, the portrayal of scientific advice as impartial and free of interests can be problematic. Consider the clash of interests of a government scientist, whose job it is to test water quality, and that of a community that suspects its water supply may be unsafe. The scientist may place greater weight on a test that minimises false positives,

especially if they are employed to undertake many such tests.

The community would likely prefer that the scientist administer a test that minimises false negatives, to ensure their health is not inadvertently put at risk.

The scientist cannot meet the community’s needs by acting merely as a knowledge broker.

The scientist can succeed only through engagement with the community: by helping the community consider a range of evidence, by participating in open dialogue, and by developing an understanding of the interests of all. The philosopher Richard Rorty wrote that science is privileged because it encompasses “tolerance, respect for the opinions of others, a willingness to listen, reliance on persuasion rather than force”.

The voices of scientists should be privileged because they bring both the knowledge and the values of science to the policy arena.

Should Hamilton fluoridate its water supply? The science seems clear: the fluoridation

© Skypixel | Dreamstime.com

S

cientific evidence is held in high regard by New Zealand’s government and its public officials, and frequently plays a significant role in the policy arena.

As the late Sir Paul Callaghan said, “Science is the compass on the voyage we must all make into the twenty-first century”.

But as government moves to appoint science advisors across its ministries, it is worth reflecting on why science should be valued so highly. Why should scientific evidence be privileged over other inputs into the policymaking process?

“Scientists should stick to the facts,” concluded the Vancouver Sun after an interview with the New Zealand Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, on the role of scientists in policy. Sir Peter has argued that scientists must act as brokers of knowledge – not advocates – when providing advice to policy-makers. This world-view, one that is held by many scientists, rests on the assumption that science itself is value-free, providing a source of fact that is uncontaminated by society’s prejudice: the value of science stems from its very lack of values.

This view is not universally held. Renowned psychologist Stephen Pinker writes: “Science is committed to two ideals: (1) the world is intelligible; and (2) acquiring knowledge is hard. To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including scepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests.”

The scientific value-system prizes openness, evidencebased debate and acceptance of human fallibility. It is these values, in fact, that make science so useful in the policy process.

Professor Shaun Hendy, Department of Physics, University of Auckland. of water supplies is a safe and cost-effective way for communities to improve dental health. The puzzle for many scientists is why society debates these things at all. Part of the answer lies in confirmation bias: those who are concerned about the modern chemical industry are more likely to seek out studies that are critical of fluoridation while ignoring those (the majority) that are not. The responsibility of the science advisor here extends well beyond the provision of evidence; the science advisor must also take responsibility for how the community uses the evidence.

Again, the job of the science advisor is not just to deliver the facts, but to engage democratically to assist the community to weigh the full breadth of evidence. They must be prepared to listen to and learn from the community. They must understand the values of the communities they serve. The successful science advisor must be an advocate for scientific values and not simply a broker of fact.

The authority of the scientific voice does not derive from its lack of values, but from the strength of the values on which it is based.

Professor Shaun Hendy is in the Department of Physics at the University of Auckland and is the Director of Te Pūnaha Matatini, a Centre of Research Excellence for Complex Systems and Networks.