Rāngai Tūmatanui
Hon Chris Finlayson speaks to Māori-Crown relations Professor Jonathan Boston on threats to democracy
Outgoing Auditor-General reflects on seven years in the job
Effective Engagement with Māori workshop
“Inspiring. Such an amazing opportunity – a perfect balance of law, practical advice, stories, history, and insights.”
Join Hāpai Public for a two-day workshop to build your historical and cultural knowledge and use that to inform your engagement with Māori. You will:
• Develop a better understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Treaty settlements and Treaty Principles – and what they mean for government agencies.
• Improve your understanding of the role of Te Tiriti in New Zealand’s constitution, and government obligations under Te Tiriti.
• Build your knowledge and gain practical skills for engaging with Māori, including when and where to start.
• Explore Te Tiriti based approaches to working.
Monday 7 July & Tuesday 8 July
Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington (in-person event, not available online) Workshop presented by Piripi Winiata
Members: $700 + GST
Non-members: $1,400 + GST
Be careful what you wish for …
As President of Hāpai Public, I was pleased to see that the Public Service Act 2020 review affirms the value of merit-based appointments and the importance of political neutrality for the public service. However, the review has also led to queries about whether the balance is right between ministers and the Public Service Commissioner in determining merit in public sector chief executive (CE) appointments. These questions are generally based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the current statutory appointment processes.
Nowhere is the merit-based principle more crucial than in the appointment of public service CEs. Why? Because our professional, politically neutral public service is one of New Zealand’s important democratic guardrails. Public service CEs are appointed on the basis that they can maintain political neutrality while supporting and engaging in inherently political processes, giving free and frank advice and sustaining the institutional capability to implement the priorities of current and future governments. These aren’t just senior management roles; they are constitutional offices at the heart of our democratic system, making them hard to recruit and replace.
There are already many opportunities for ministers to influence choices about the appointment of public sector CEs. While the Public Service Commissioner (or Deputy Commissioner) chairs the selection panel, ministers can identify matters they want selection panels to focus on and can suggest external panel members. The Panel recommends an appointment to the Minister for the Public Service, who refers it to the Governor-General in Council. The Governor-General accepts or declines
the recommendation on the advice of the Executive Council, which comprises all Ministers of the Crown. Only then can the Panel Chair make an appointment. The GovernorGeneral can also direct the Panel Chair to start again or to appoint a particular person to the position, although I am not aware that the direction to appoint has ever been used.
In practice, this gives ministers a good deal of input. We think this balance is about right.
There will be people who believe this influence is too much. Not so in our view. A relationship of trust between a public sector CE and a minister is essential. Ministers have a right to be served by people in whom they have confidence. If ministers have no influence on who is appointed, they may be more likely to turn elsewhere for advice and support.
On the other hand, there is a real danger in abandoning political neutrality in favour of direct appointment by ministers. Competence can be compromised if political loyalty is prioritised over expertise. If a CE owes their job to the minister, this can lead to dangerous group-think. It disincentivises challenge, reduces speaking truth to power, and makes wise long-term thinking harder. We can see this playing out in real-time in the United States and closer to home in the recent Australian Robodebt scandal.
Transparent, merit-based CE appointments aren’t just good practice; they are constitutional guardrails that ensure that our public sector can serve current and future governments effectively. Any potential change must be subject to robust, deep, and open scrutiny.
With thanks to former Hāpai Public Board member Deb Te Kawa for her thinking and discourse on this topic.
H Ā PAI PUBLIC PRESIDENT
Liz MacPherson
PUBLISHER
Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand
Email: office@hapaipublic.org.nz Website: hapaipublic.org.nz
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
Kathy Young editor@hapaipublic.org.nz
CONTRIBUTORS
Kay Booth, Jonathan Boston, Gillian Brookes, Finlay Field, Chris Finlayson, Liz MacPherson, Paula O’Kane, Iain Rennie, John Ryan, Stefan Speller, Kathy Young
JOURNAL ADVISORY
GROUP
Barbara Allen, Ayesha Arshad, Kay Booth, Liam Russell, Stefan Speller, Kathy Young
ADVERTISING
Email: office@hapaipublic.org.nz
CONTRIBUTIONS
Public Sector welcomes contributions to each issue from readers. Please contact the editor for more information.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Hāpai Public welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions. Please email office@hapaipublic.org.nz or visit hapaipublic.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 Hāpai Public. 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. 01
10
INVESTIGATION
Democracy in peril: What’s going wrong and what can be done?
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 04
LEAD STORY
Hon Chris Finlayson reflects on Treaty settlements and Māori-Crown relations
The 2025 Hāpai Public Ivan Kwok Memorial Lecture on Māori-Crown relations was presented by the Hon Chris Finlayson at the end of April 2025. His abridged speech is presented here.
09
INSIGHTS
Ivan Kwok: A legacy of excellence in the Public Service
Who was Ivan Kwok? And what is the Hāpai Public Ivan Kwok Memorial Lecture? We explain all.
Jonathan Boston, Emeritus Professor at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, examines the causes behind democracy’s retreat and proposes a comprehensive approach that builds resilience.
14
REFLECTIONS
Trust in the public sector: Reflections from the Auditor-General
John Ryan, Auditor-General, reflects on his seven years in the role, specifically the role of public servants, trust, and what the next seven years may hold.
18
EXPLAINER
Officers of Parliament: Who are they and what do they do?
Stefan Speller provides an overview of the roles of the Officers of Parliament and what potential innovations we might expect to see here in the future.
20
ANALYSIS
Case study: Upskilling the workforce in AI
This short case study demonstrates how strategic AI implementation can transform workforce capability while also achieving measurable productivity gains. 22 INVESTIGATION
What’s really going on with flexible working in the public sector?
Paula O’Kane and Gillian Brookes share their research and insights into the world of flexible working within the public sector.
26
NEW PROFESSIONALS
“You are your own expert”
Finlay Field summarises professional coach Sophia Weithaler’s job interview tips for Hāpai Public New Professionals.
28 BOOK REVIEW
Hāpai Public’s Executive Director Kay Booth reviews The Coming Wave: Technology, Power and the Twenty-First Century’s Greatest Dilemma by Mustafa Suleyman with Michael Bhaskar.
29 DID YOU KNOW?
About the Press Gallery
Learn more about New Zealand’s Parliamentary Press Gallery and how it serves as a vital bridge between elected representatives and the public.
Hon Chris Finlayson reflects on Treaty settlements and Māori-Crown relations
The 2025 Hāpai Public Ivan Kwok Lecture on Māori-Crown relations was presented by the Hon Chris Finlayson at the end of April 2025. His abridged speech is presented here.
AUTHOR Hon Christopher Finlayson KC
Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa and talofa from Apia.
After I left Parliament in early 2019, I decided to write three books. Today, I wish to address He Kupu Taurangi: Treaty Settlements and the Future of Aotearoa New Zealand, a work deeply informed by the wisdom of Ivan Kwok, whose afterword in the book offers invaluable insights into Crown-Māori relations.
Ivan’s philosophy, articulated eloquently in his afterword to the book, establishes several fundamental principles that warrant our attention.
First among these is his understanding that the ultimate value of Treaty of Waitangi settlements goes beyond the money and the power involved. Settlements are about what is right and fair. This perspective emphasises that settlements transcend mere financial transactions; they possess a moral dimension that cannot be quantified in purely economic terms.
The second principle Ivan outlined is equally significant: Treaty settlements are not merely instruments of redress for historical grievances – they establish a foundation for the future relationship between the Crown and Māori and lay the foundation for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. These agreements are forward-looking, designed to foster intergenerational cooperation while acknowledging and embedding the Treaty at the heart of this relationship. The Crown must adopt a proactive and visionary approach in this process, reconciling past grievances while positioning iwi for future success. And settlements are permanent.
Treaty settlements are not merely instruments of redress for historical grievances – they establish a foundation for the future relationship between the Crown and Māori and lay the foundation for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.
The permanence of these settlements became a major issue during my time as Treaty Minister. By 2014, after six years in this role, I began to worry about all the Settlement obligations starting to pile up. This concern prompted the establishment of the Post-Settlement Commitments Unit (then part of the Office of Treaty Settlements). This initiative was designed to ensure that the thousands of commitments would be honoured by the Crown and that the spirit of settlements would permeate government understanding. After my departure, Minister Kelvin Davis established (the then) Te Arawhiti, a development I considered highly beneficial to this ongoing work.
Then there’s the apology aspect of a Settlement. The sincerity of a Crown apology represents a crucial component of the settlement process. There have been numerous instances where Māori have questioned the Crown’s sincerity, necessitating further dialogue and engagement. The Parihaka settlement provides a compelling example of this dynamic. Despite multiple attempts by the Crown to apologise, it took dedicated effort to achieve a position where Parihaka was prepared to accept the Crown’s apology. This was a historically significant moment –the first and perhaps only occasion where the Crown has acknowledged that its servants committed rape.
The day I delivered this apology at the Parihaka marae, facing thousands of people whose scrutinising gazes questioned the authenticity of my words, remains indelibly etched in my memory. This experience underscores that the apology constitutes the most sensitive and challenging aspect of Treaty settlements – it holds greater significance for the settling iwi than any other element. It is therefore profoundly frustrating to hear the reductive claim that settlements are “only
The apology constitutes the most sensitive and challenging aspect of Treaty settlements – it holds greater significance for the settling iwi than any other element.
CHARLES CROFT (LEFT), SIR TIPENE O’REGAN (MIDDLE), MARK SOLOMON (RIGHT). MEMBERS OF NGAI TAHU AT PARLIAMENT, WELLINGTON - PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY CRAIG SIMCOX. DOMINION POST (NEWSPAPER): PHOTOGRAPHIC NEGATIVES AND PRINTS OF THE EVENING POST AND DOMINION NEWSPAPERS. REF: EP/1998/3025/33-F. ALEXANDER TURNBULL LIBRARY, WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND. /RECORDS/23028317
about the money”. They are fundamentally about the Crown, as the preeminent power, acknowledging its wrongdoing and committing to better conduct in the future.
As Ivan noted, “Each apology is rooted in the actual, factual position, which becomes the platform for the ongoing relationship and obligations inherent in that.” His understanding of the principles of maximum independence, abandonment of dependency, and embracement of interdependency placed him intellectually ahead of his contemporaries.
Ivan recognised the potential hazards of centralised decision-making. The perspective from central Wellington often differs markedly from the realities in the regions such as Te Hiku
the Far North, the East Coast (Ngāti Porou, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui ), Tuhoe, Whakatōhea, or the Chatham Islands (Ngāti Mutunga and Moriori). Local communities require greater control over outcomes and must establish accountability among themselves. As Ivan observed, “People are less likely to complain where they can help identify the problem and then design and implement the solution.”
The transition away from existing governance models presents challenges. Politicians and bureaucrats must accept the legitimacy of other institutions and relinquish certain controls. Partnership and risk-taking are difficult for those accustomed to authority, yet this delegation of power constitutes the essence of Treaty settlements. It means, for example,
entrusting Ngāti Kahungunu with influence over child welfare decisions or enabling iwi to ensure their tamariki achieve gainful employment rather than welfare dependency. Central government must cede some authority – a prospect that should inspire confidence rather than fear.
Crown representatives often commit several errors in this process. They may fail to comprehend the commitments they have
Central government must cede some authority – a prospect that should inspire confidence rather than fear.
undertaken or misconceive these agreements as finite commercial transactions. As previously established, these settlements can never be ‘done and dusted’ – they mark a new beginning.
The benefits of Treaty settlements are obvious. From a purely commercial perspective, these settlements have provided Māori with an economic foundation. No Treaty settlement in my estimation can be considered a failure. While all have experienced fluctuations and occasional missteps, they have generally been successful. Their investment strategies typically adopt an intergenerational perspective with a preference for New Zealand assets. They pursue dual objectives: financial returns alongside social, cultural, and environmental
These settlements can never be ‘done and dusted’ – they mark a new beginning.
goals. Their commitment to sustainable portfolio growth remains firmly anchored in service to their people.
These accomplishments are extraordinary. Iwi have accepted settlements in good faith, with the implicit understanding that the Crown will honour its commitments. Through their diligence, they have established enterprises that significantly benefit New Zealand’s economic and social future. Against this backdrop, allegations of ‘Māori privilege’ are particularly distressing – the term itself constitutes an oxymoron. For the historical Treaty settlement process to succeed, the Crown must elevate its performance, although current evidence suggests inconsistent progress.
This issue transcends partisan politics. It represents not a project of a single political party, but a Crown endeavour. Regardless of administration, we have achieved remarkable progress; we must now ensure we maintain this
For the historical Treaty settlement process to succeed, the Crown must elevate its performance, although current evidence suggests inconsistent progress.
momentum. If Crown officials study Ivan Kwok’s afterword and reflect upon his career and commitment, such missteps can be avoided.
The recording of this speech can be found on the Hāpai Public website here: https://hapaipublic.org.nz/ Article?Action=View&Article_id=150520
Hon Chris Finlayson KC is a New Zealand lawyer and former Member of Parliament (2005 to 2019) during which time he was Attorney-General, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage.
THE PRIME MINISTER JIM BOLGER (LEFT), MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS DOUG GRAHAM (RIGHT). QUEEN ELIZABETH AND DAME TE ARIKINUI TE ATAIRANGIKAAHU - PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY JOHN NICHOLSON.. DOMINION POST
THOUGHTS
Chris included the following points during the audience Q&A session, following his lecture.
• The Crown must lift its game – the single biggest thing the Crown can do is to be humble and ensure settlements live into the future. Public servants are stewards of this mahi.
• What are the obligations of the Crown?
The Cabinet Manual (2023 edition) sets it out very well, as well as the 2019 Cabinet Office Circular that lays out Te Tiriti o Waitangi Treaty of Waitangi Guidance for public servants. All public servants should also read Ivan’s words (in the Afterword in He Kupu Taurangi).
• If there are disputes between Māori and the Crown, don’t take a legalistic pin-pricking approach. Stand back and try to understand what the authors of the settlement were trying to achieve.
• Settlements are agreements between Māori and the Crown: not between Māori and Pākehā. This is where the current conversation has gone awry. Be clear on who the Treaty parties are and what the Agreements are trying to achieve. Only then can we go forward.
• Fifty years on from its establishment, it is time to reconsider the role of the Waitangi Tribunal: what is the role of the Tribunal in the years to come? A slimmed-down
Tribunal with a focus on how the Treaty is being dealt with day-to-day makes sense.
• New Zealand’s approach to the Treaty settlement process is outstanding globally, yet we still have work to do to ensure it produces a ‘living outcome’.
• The biggest thing that we can do to make the settlements live into the future is to have a generosity of spirit towards tangata whenua. Iwi settled with a generosity of spirit – the process was in response to the raw deal that they had received from the Crown. The settlement process is a bipartisan approach to put some of that right. Think of Treaty settlements as laying the future for Aotearoa New Zealand.
New Leadership Opportunities!
As we dust off the heavy jackets and service the heat pumps at home, at work the recruitment market has been showing signs of spring. In the run up to the public sector year end and with ministers focused on the pending election year we are seeing the pressure ramp up on agencies that are still coming to grips with the impact of recent and ongoing restructures. We have seen the return of hourly rate contracts to the market along with a heightened need for seasoned Seniors. We have also been busy filling a number of Tier Two and Three roles, with a steady pipeline of those roles going forward. It’s not the bonanza of seasons past and our career team remain frantically busy, but it’s a long way from the dead of winter.
Market Update - Demand for Senior Leadership and Specialist Roles
While overall volumes are not where they once were, our recruiters have noticed increased activity. Roles in higher demand include executive roles at DCE and Director level, HRBPs, Senior Policy Analysts, Change Managers, Communications Specialists, Accountants, Finance Business Partners, AP/AR, Data Analysts, Business Analysts, EAs, Senior HR Advisors and Project/Programme Coordinators. If you are looking, or hiring, please do not hesitate to reach out to us, as we have some great talent and roles available. Visit www.H2R.co.nz/meet-our-team for the contact details of our recruiters or feel free to contact Eugene Ng, Katerina Makarios or Shane MacKay - Wellington: 04 4999471 / Auckland: 09 3687300
AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
IVAN KWOK
BY
IAIN RENNIE, SECRETARY AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO THE TREASURY
“Ivan, quite simply, was one of the finest public servants that I have known in my career. He had a lifetime of outstanding service to the people of New Zealand. Ivan served at the Treasury for 41 years, and his fingerprints are over a whole range of policy issues covering public finance, commercial transactions, and the Crown-Māori relationship.
I know myself and many of my colleagues have learned hugely from Ivan through his career, and we’re privileged to have worked with him and learned from him.
I want to acknowledge that there are members of Ivan’s family who are in attendance today. In December last year, as Treasury, we welcomed Ivan’s family to our organisation
to receive Ivan’s New Zealand Order of Merit medal and citation, which are to be held in perpetuity in the Treasury. We proudly display Ivan’s medal within the Treasury, and are hugely grateful to his family for this honour.
Ivan’s work established enduring frameworks for the Crown-Māori relationship that prioritise meaningful engagement and putting people first.
There are many famous Ivan Kwok quotes that continue to reside in the Treasury today, but one that stands out for me was his saying that it’s about awareness and empathy as an advisory shop, not just the economics and the financials, but the impact it has on people’s lives. We continue to learn a lot from
Ivan. He’s fondly remembered by many as ‘the Kwok’ and ‘Yoda’, and he was a mentor and a visionary taonga. Many of us to this day still ask ourselves in a situation, “What would Ivan do?” That’s a question that I will continue to ask myself in the future. Thank you.”
Ivan Kwok: A legacy of excellence in the public service
Who was Ivan Kwok? And what is the Hāpai Public Ivan Kwok Memorial Lecture?
Ivan Kwok was an exemplary public servant whose career in the New Zealand Treasury set a standard of professional excellence that continues to inspire today. Known for his humility and effectiveness, Ivan made significant contributions to the New Zealand Public Service, particularly through his dedicated work on the Treaty settlement process.
What distinguished Ivan was his deep fascination with the Treaty settlement process, which became his gateway into the Māori world – a culture he came to deeply appreciate and respect. He considered his Treaty work to be his most meaningful contribution, believing it made Aotearoa New Zealand a better and fairer place for all citizens. For example, he was involved in virtually every significant Treaty settlement during the Helen Clark and John Key governments, including the path-breaking central North Island forestry and Tūhoe agreements. Ministers were known to sit up straighter when Ivan walked into the room, reportedly one exclaiming, “You’ve brought Ivan with you, this must be serious.”
Throughout his career, Ivan developed a profound commitment to partnership with Māori, grounded in his respect for restoring mana. His approach embodied true partnership principles that remain relevant in today’s Public Service.
CREDIT: ATAWHAI TIBBLE
Colleagues remember him as the embodiment of core public service principles. He was particularly noted for his unwavering political neutrality and his courage in providing free and frank advice, regardless of the political climate – qualities that define the highest standard of public service.
The Ivan Kwok Lecture, established by Hāpai Public (then IPANZ) in 2022, honours his legacy and the values he exemplified. Hon Sir Justice Joe Williams delivered the inaugural Ivan Kwok
Lecture entitled ‘Crown-Māori Relations and a 200-year Search for Partnership’. Hon Chris Finlayson delivered the 2025 lecture – ‘MāoriCrown Relations’. These lectures serve as a platform to explore and celebrate not only Ivan’s commitment to Māori-Crown partnership but also the ideals of excellence in public service that he personified.
For today’s public servants, the Ivan Kwok Lectures offer an opportunity to reflect on what it means to serve with integrity, cultural sensitivity, and dedication – a fitting tribute to a man who quietly but profoundly shaped New Zealand’s approach to public service and Treaty relationships.
Democracy in peril: What’s going wrong and what can be done?
Jonathan Boston, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy in the School of Government at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, examines the causes behind democracy’s retreat and proposes a comprehensive approach that builds resilience against future threats.
AUTHOR Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston
The future of democracy matters. Without question, democratic values, processes, and institutions are vital for the rule of law, the protection of human rights, transparent and accountable government, the peaceful transfer of political power, and the pursuit of truth and justice. Responsive, authentic, and trustworthy democratic governance is thus something to celebrate, nurture, and protect.
During the two decades immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many previously autocratic regimes became democracies. Also, some previously fragile democracies enjoyed greater integrity and stability. Unfortunately, since around 2010 the global democratic tide has receded. Democratic governance and human rights are now in retreat. Public trust in democratic institutions is declining, especially among young people, and the level of grievance is rising. Political polarisation is undermining governmental effectiveness and legitimacy.
* Excludes micro-states; covers 165 countries and two territories Source: Economist Intelligence
Table 1: Democracy Index by Regime Type, 2024
IMAGE BY FREEPIK
Worse, autocratic regimes and insidious forms of post-truth politics are on the rise. Without doubt, humanity has entered a much darker era.
The retreating democratic tide Table 1 (page 10) shows the results of an analysis by the Economist Intelligence Unit on regime types globally in 2024. The picture is sobering: only 25 countries, representing less than 7 per cent of the world’s population, were ‘full democracies’. These results reflect a deteriorating pattern for at least a decade.
The verdict of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance is equally stark: far more countries have witnessed declining democratic performance
over recent years (ie, based on a range of criteria, including the quality of representation and protection of human rights) than those which are improving. This deterioration has affected not only ‘fragile democracies’ but also those previously assessed as ‘high-performing’. Moreover, the pattern is similar across most continents, including Europe. Particularly concerning, the integrity and credibility of elections has declined in many countries, with electoral outcomes being more frequently disputed. Voter turnout in elections has also fallen, from around 65 per cent of eligible voters in the late 2000s to 55.5 per cent in 2024. Doubtless, this reflects reduced public trust in democratic institutions.
Compounding matters, political polarisation,
intimidation, and violence have increased in many democracies, with levels of grievance rising and populistic, nationalistic, illiberal, and anti-democratic parties flourishing. Parties widely regarded as ‘far-right’ or ‘radical right’ are now among the largest in many European parliaments.
And now the world’s longest-standing constitutional democracy – the United States – is led by Donald Trump. One study found that he was low in honesty, empathy, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. And another, based on the ratings of 28 experts, found that he was low in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and once again high in extroversion. (It also found he was high on the ‘dark triad’ of narcissism, psychopathy,
and Machiavellianism.) “Our results illustrate Trump’s off-the-charts personality and campaigning style and suggest that even when compared with other abrasive, narcissistic, and confrontational political figures, he stands out as an outlier among the outliers,” write the authors of that study. Troublingly, too, President Trump has surrounded himself with people of broadly similar dispositions – arrogant, unprincipled, cavalier, capricious and, in some cases, of doubtful competence. Necessarily, they all endorse ‘the big lie’, namely that Trump won the 2020 Presidential election.
Tragically, therefore, a firehose of falsehoods, fictions, and ‘alternative facts’ now pervade the American government, laying siege to the foundations of constitutional democracy. A lying culture, after all, is utterly incompatible with democratic norms. Fundamentally, political trust depends on a common commitment to the truth. Trump’s disregard for the truth is thus the most corrosive of his many assaults on democratic governance. It paves the way to dictatorship.
lack sufficient transparency and are arguably inconsistent with the principle of political equality.
Additionally, serious political divisions remain over many critical policy issues. These include the status, role, and principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, addressing the fiscal pressures of an ageing population, and how to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Significantly, several influential parliamentarians favour politicising the top tier of the Public Service, thereby risking greater corruption and further undermining the provision of free and frank advice.
Equally, like other democracies, Aotearoa New Zealand is vulnerable to foreign interference in electoral and political matters, not to mention targeted disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and espionage by autocratic regimes. It also faces huge potential societal disruption over the coming decades from multiple natural hazards, environmental degradation, climate change, and advanced technologies, most notably artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum computing. Such developments will pose unprecedented challenges for policymakers, severely testing democratic resilience.
vast increase in income and wealth inequality following the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s and 1990s; slower rates of productivity growth; stagnant real wages; less secure employment; and the growing policy influence of the super-rich, with related evidence of political corruption. Unsurprisingly, these phenomena have fostered a culture of grievance, alienation, disaffection, and anxiety, encouraging anti-elite and anti-state sentiments, especially among unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Traditional centre-left parties have largely failed to mitigate these concerns, thereby helping to bolster support for populist demagogues.
Relatedly, other analyses highlight, particularly in the United States, a long-term decline in social capital, with fewer in-person interactions, voluntary associations, and civic engagement. Exacerbating such developments are the deleterious effects of large social media platforms: isolation, echo chambers, heightened stress and anxiety (especially among teenagers and young adults), and the mass dissemination and amplification of disinformation.
A lying culture is utterly incompatible with democratic norms. Fundamentally, political trust depends on a common commitment to the truth.
The local situation
Fortunately, Aotearoa New Zealand remains among the world’s most stable polities, with relatively robust democratic processes and institutions. Anti-democratic social movements are weak. And the near-term risk of despotism is small. Against this, public trust in our governance arrangements, including the public service, has deteriorated, levels of grievance are rising, and the performance of many public services is concerning.
Moreover, no country is immune from the current global threats to democratic governance. Hence, the long-term resilience of New Zealand’s democracy is not guaranteed. Indeed, numerous risks are evident.
Aotearoa New Zealand is a highly centralised polity with few constitutional constraints: it lacks a written, entrenched, and justiciable constitution; the House of Representatives is comparatively small and dominated by the executive; since 1950 there has been no upper house; independent constitutional watchdogs are few in number and only modestly resourced; the fourth estate, along with investigative journalism, are in rapid decline; and the rules surrounding campaign finance
Critical questions
Against this disquieting backdrop, several critical questions arise. First, why is the democratic tide retreating globally? Second, how might the current and likely future threats to democracy be most effectively countered? Put differently, what are the best ways to strengthen the quality and resilience of democratic governance? Unsurprisingly, such questions have been exercising the minds of many researchers, think tanks, international organisations, and politicians. The relevant literature is already large and growing rapidly.
Likely causes
Numerous theories and conjectures seek to explain the ebbing democratic tide. To illustrate briefly: some analyses focus on the social, economic, and political impacts of major destabilising shocks, such as the global financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Others point to the often-polarising effects of increasing cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity, prompted in many cases by large-scale, involuntary, crossborder migration. Such developments, coupled with the rise of identity politics, religious fundamentalism, and the social and economic impacts of globalisation, have created fertile ground for populist and authoritarian political movements.
Yet other analyses highlight the socioeconomic causes of reduced public trust in the efficacy of democratic institutions: the
Possible solutions – the need for democratic renewal, reform, and resilience What, then, is the way forward?
First, the current and likely future risks to democratic governance must be taken seriously. Democracy is not inevitable, whether in Aotearoa New Zealand or elsewhere. Accordingly, a prudent, anticipatory, riskmitigation approach is vital. The aim must be to enhance not only the integrity and effectiveness of democratic governance but also its resilience to future shocks. Realistically, such goals will need both competent political leadership and a broad societal coalition committed to ongoing democratic renewal and reform.
Democracy is not inevitable, whether in Aotearoa New Zealand or elsewhere. Accordingly, a prudent, anticipatory, riskmitigation approach is vital.
Second, given the multiple causes of the ebbing democratic tide globally, a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach will be essential, as recommended, for instance, by the OECD through its Reinforcing Democracy Initiative and the Taskforce on Strengthening Australian Democracy, which reported to the Commonwealth government in July 2024. In most cases effective strategies will likely require well-designed measures to:
• protect existing democratic institutions and enhance their integrity (eg, through the reform of campaign finance and lobbying)
• boost governmental transparency; improve data quality and availability; counter disinformation; and support independent, high-quality journalism
• invigorate citizen participation and engagement in public life, including democratic experimentation and innovation (eg, greater use of deliberative democracy such as citizens’ juries and assemblies)
• enhance civics education, critical thinking, media literacy and the capacity to distinguish between facts and fallacies
• enable just transitions to abrupt and disruptive changes (eg, decarbonisation and transformative technological innovations) and
• tackle the specific causes of alienation and disaffection, such as poverty, inequality, and inadequate public services.
Obviously, each democracy will need to adopt strategies that reflect its distinctive circumstances, challenges, and opportunities. That said, concerted measures by the international community to address major global problems, such as infectious diseases, the regulation of advanced technologies, the mitigation of climate change, and the protection of biodiversity, will be essential if individual democracies are not to be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the problems they could otherwise face later this century. Unfortunately, effective multilateral cooperation will be doubly difficult given the current geopolitical disorder.
Finally, the future of democratic governance ultimately rests on citizens who share a common moral framework and conception of a good and just society. In short, democracy requires a political culture that cherishes truth and justice; upholds human dignity and equality; endorses an extensive range of human rights; encourages active citizenship; and supports mutual responsibility, social solidarity, and collective risk-sharing in the face of large-
scale threats. Such norms cannot be taken for granted: they must be taught, advocated, and widely practised. That responsibility is not limited to a few; it falls on every citizen.
Jonathan Boston has published widely on a range of matters, including public management, social policy, climate change policy, tertiary education policy, and comparative government. While at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, Jonathan has served as Director of the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies and Director of the Institute of Policy Studies.
Democracy requires a political culture that cherishes truth and justice, upholds human dignity and equality, endorses an extensive range of human rights, encourages active citizenship, and supports mutual responsibility.
Contributions please
Public Sector journal is always happy to receive contributions from readers. If you’re working on an interesting project in the public sector or have something relevant to say about a particular issue, think about sending us a short article on the subject.
Contact the editor Kathy Young at editor@hapaipublic.org.nz
Trust in the public sector: Reflections from the Auditor-General
John Ryan, Controller and Auditor-General, reflects on his seven years in the role, specifically the role of public servants, trust, and why scrutiny matters.
A lot has changed since 2018. And there has been much that I have commented on as Auditor-General over that time.
My reports are often described in the media as “damning” or “highly critical”, and it is true that some are. But what is less often highlighted are the times where I report that public servants have provided good advice, or managed processes well, or that “there is nothing to see here”. These are less sensational findings, but they represent most of what I see.
Public servants are invariably hard-working, politically neutral, and highly competent. They serve our country through good times and bad. The public expects much from them, and they are trusted with significant resources. While things can and do go wrong, I wanted to start this reflection piece by recognising the public service and what it does.
The Auditor-General’s role is fundamentally about supporting Parliament’s and the public’s trust in the public sector.
Remarkably, I have found that, despite issuing over 23,000 opinions and other reports in my term, I can summarise my thoughts on trust in just 1500 words.
Trust is declining
Trust gives the public sector social licence and helps it operate effectively and efficiently. Trust means people are willing to follow the law,
engage with the rules and processes important for public life, and support the government to achieve its aims.
New Zealanders have comparatively high levels of trust in their public institutions (and at similar levels to other smaller liberal democracies). However, the 2023 OECD Trust Survey reports that only 46 per cent of New Zealanders reported high or moderately high trust in central government. It highlighted less trust in the public service from Māori, Pasifika, women, and those with less education or lower incomes. Some of these findings are mirrored in the Public Service Commission’s Kiwis Count surveys. The threats to trust that the OECD identified globally – including multiple crises, misinformation, and citizens’ lack of belief that they can meaningfully participate in decisions –are threats domestically, too.
What drives trust?
A framework we use describes three essential elements to building and maintaining trust:
• Competency: the public sector delivers the services that they are required to.
• Reliability: the public sector delivers services in normal times and during crises. It sustains those services so they are there in the future.
• Honesty: the public sector operates and behaves with integrity. In New Zealand this is a significant driver of people’s decisions to trust.
To be effective, these elements must be underpinned by meaningful relationships between the public sector and the public.
Telling your story helps
New Zealand does well when accounting for public spending. Our public financial reporting is to internationally recognised standards and timely, and I provide independent assurance on it. This reporting is trusted and supports the integrity of our public finance system. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about understanding what we get for this spending. We should all be able to answer some basic questions about what the public sector is achieving with our taxes:
• What outcomes is the public sector looking to achieve?
• What is the strategy to achieve those outcomes?
• How does the Budget relate to those strategies?
• How much have we spent to deliver those strategies, and what is being achieved?
Trust gives the public sector social licence and helps it operate effectively and efficiently.
Despite the many reports, strategies, and other material produced, answers to these questions are hard to find or do not exist. A press release at Budget time, or an annual report that
AUTHOR
John Ryan
JOHN RYAN SPEAKING AT A RECENT HĀPAI PUBLIC EVENT
describes how busy an organisation has been, does not always answer these questions. They certainly do not help Parliament or the public to assess the public sector’s competency, reliability, and honesty.
Others share these concerns. Parliament, through the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC), has opened an inquiry into performance reporting and public accountability. I encourage you all to follow this inquiry and participate in the public submissions stage.
But many improvements can be made in the meantime, so I encourage organisations to review their performance reporting and make meaningful improvements now.
Building trust is also about relationships Trust is not just about better reporting. In our personal lives we do not ask for reports and audits; instead, we build trust through
Trust is not just about better reporting … Trust is relational. Trust is built by people, not institutions.
meaningful connections that are sustained and built on over time.
Building such relationships between the public sector and the public is challenging, but not impossible. We commissioned research on Māori perspectives on effective public accountability, as I was interested in why Māori consistently have lower trust in the public sector. Some observations on how the public sector can build trust with Māori have, to my mind, universal application:
• Trust is relational. Trust is built by people, not institutions. There must be continuity in the relationship, even when people move on.
• Trust is reciprocal. To gain trust, we must also trust. This means sharing information, being accountable, and being open to listening and changing.
• Tikanga builds trust. We need to respect and uphold relevant tikanga. It may feel obvious, but the research showed that the public sector often falls short in this regard.
• The power imbalance thwarts trust. The public sector comes to the table with processes, funding, and resources. Māori often don’t. Being aware of this imbalance,
and addressing it where possible, enhances trust.
There is much good intent in these areas. However, as our recent report on the implementation of Treaty settlements showed, intent does not always translate into appropriate action.
Crisis after crisis
We live in a world that is dealing with multiple crises.
During my term we have faced a pandemic, a range of climate-change related severe weather events, supply chain disruptions, and a cost of living crisis. Locally we also had the terrorist attack on the Christchurch Masjidain and the Whakaari White Island eruption. We face other significant challenges, including infrastructure deficits and workforce shortages. The list goes on.
The public sector has generally responded well to these. This has required a focus on rapid delivery, often under extreme pressure. Public sector workers deserve more recognition for this than they receive.
Having experienced a near-constant state of crisis for much of the past seven years, it is time for a reset. There are three matters that I believe the public sector needs to pay more attention to.
The first is integrity in procurement. In an environment where rapid responses will be required often, and with little notice, the public sector should be better prepared. Procurement processes need to enable organisations to respond rapidly and with integrity.
Secondly, many of today’s issues have been warned about for years, including by my Office. The public sector must focus more on avoiding crises, or at least be better prepared for them. The further out we see issues emerge, the more options we have. We have long-term planning architecture in place – including councils’ longterm plans, infrastructure strategies, long-term insights briefings, and the Treasury’s long-term fiscal statement – but these seem to have limited impact on decisions made today. Longterm planning is important, but it often takes a back seat to more immediate issues. How can we make the important urgent? How can we maintain a readiness for crises that we know will emerge – even if we do not know when?
Thirdly, to face the future we must learn from the past. As the World Health Organisation said, societies tend to “panic then forget”. Preparedness includes applying the lessons learned now, to avoid relearning them later.
Parliament matters
Parliamentary scrutiny is critical to building trust in the public sector and holding it to account. Changes to Parliament’s rules in 2023 empowered select committees to hold longer sessions to scrutinise public organisations. This, alongside scrutiny plans and structured agendas, has facilitated richer, more balanced conversations that focus on getting to the heart of organisations’ performance.
Parliament’s role has often been underplayed in the areas of scrutiny, long-term focus, and public accountability. Recent changes have increased the impact of the work Parliament does to support trust in the public sector. The FEC’s inquiry is an opportunity to further consider how Parliament’s role can be strengthened.
The Johnson Group has worked across the public sector since 2005. A member of the All of Government Recruitment Panel and regarded for our expertise in public sector recruitment, our consultants are specialists who understand the very specific skill sets required of public sector professionals as well as the intricacies of the Wellington market.
We know our candidates well - from what drives or interests them to how they fit into your team to deliver excellent outcomes. Talk to us about how we can help you land your next role, or find the ideal candidate to strengthen your team.
The role of the Auditor-General Trust and confidence in our public accountability system relies on those in the system behaving with integrity. New Zealand is lucky that our officials generally do. Integrity goes beyond individuals’ actions – it depends on the collective actions of the public sector. A priority during my term has been to promote a whole-of-organisation approach to building a culture of integrity, something our framework can assist organisations with.
There are places in the world where these norms and their importance are not understood by the public and are increasingly challenged by those with power. The role of strong independent parliamentary watchdogs, the judiciary, and others remain critical to protecting our democracy.
The world has changed, but the need for a trusting relationship between the public sector and the public is enduring – as is the importance of audit and independent assurance. I cannot predict the challenges to come in the next Auditor-General’s term, but I do know that the Auditor-General role, which has been here since 1846, will continue to be vital.
Clive Horne Principal Consultant James Atkin Principal Consultant Marissa Taylor Principal Consultant
Officers of Parliament: Who are they and what do they do?
Stefan Speller, public servant and member of the Hāpai Public Journal Advisory Group, provides an overview of the roles of the Officers of Parliament.
Members of Parliament (MPs) scrutinise the Government and its policies, expenditure, performance, and proposed laws. However, Aotearoa New Zealand also has an underlying layer of non-political scrutiny carried out by the Officers of Parliament.
The three Officers are the:
• Ombudsman,
• Controller and Auditor-General, and
• Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
The Officers work as independent watchdogs; their powers enable them to scrutinise the Government on behalf of the House of Representatives.
The Officers are not part of the Government, not answerable to any minister or dependent on Government budgets. Officers are appointed by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the House, and funded directly by the House.
This sets them apart from Parliamentary agencies such as the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Services who are currently funded by Government.
The Officers report to the House annually through the Officers of Parliament Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker of the House. They can also report to any minister, committee, public organisation, or anyone else on any matter arising from their work.
The Officers are often at select committees advising on developing legislation and providing information for MPs to hold the Government to account. They help select committees critique agencies’ responses and provide advice where
responses are inadequate. They provide transparent data to help decision makers understand Government priorities, how much is being spent to achieve outcomes, and whether this is effective.
The Ombudsman
The new Chief Ombudsman is John Allen, appointed for a five-year term from 31 March 2025. The word ombudsman is a genderneutral Swedish term, which loosely translates to mean ‘grievance person’.
The Ombudsman can investigate acts and decisions by central and local government agencies. This includes complaints about responses to requests for official information.
The Ombudsman can investigate disclosures about serious wrongdoing at work, in both the private and public sectors, under the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022, and complaints about Oranga Tamariki and its care and custody providers. The Ombudsman can also monitor places of detention like prisons and aged care facilities, where people are not free to leave at will (such as secure dementia care facilities).
Peter Boshier recently resigned as Chief Ombudsman as he turned 72, which is required by the Ombudsmen Act 1975. Boshier has recommended that this criterion be reconsidered by Parliament, given the direction against age-based discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
The law allows for several Ombudsmen, but recent Parliaments have decided that one is suitable to deliver the expected duties.
The Controller and Auditor-General
The current Controller and Auditor-General is John Ryan, whose term ends on 2 July 2025. This role is appointed for a seven-year term.
The Auditor-General works to improve trust and promote value in the public sector by giving an independent view of how public organisations perform and account for their performance. They have two business units: the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) and Audit New Zealand.
Audit New Zealand audits public agencies’ financial and non-financial performance information. The OAG also contracts audit service providers from the private sector to carry out audits on the Auditor-General’s behalf. About 3400 public entities, from government departments to local councils and schools, are required to be audited annually.
AUTHOR Stefan Speller
This mandatory audit function makes up about 85 per cent of the Auditor-General’s work. Through the Controller function, the AuditorGeneral also monitors government spending against the authority provided by Parliament.
The OAG also has a discretionary programme of work that enables it to look at performance issues in more depth. This work includes performance audits, inquiries, commentaries, sector reports, and good practice guidance and seminars. The OAG uses the entirety of this work, including the audits, to advise and support select committees in their scrutiny role.
The
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE)
The current Commissioner is the Rt Hon Simon Upton, who was appointed for a five-year term in October 2017, and is now in his second fiveyear term.
The PCE has broad powers to investigate environmental concerns. The Commissioner’s work is directed towards a single output: independent reports and advice on environmental issues that maintain or improve the quality of New Zealand’s environment.
The PCE’s recent reports include Examining the drivers of forestry in New Zealand and Going with the grain: Changing land uses to fit a changing landscape.
The PCE is the only Officer subject to the Official Information Act 1982, and must respect specific information protection provisions set out in the Environment Act 1986.
Innovations and modern context
In the future we may see new Officers of Parliament. A 2022 Cabinet committee paper from then Finance Minister Grant Robertson
detailed an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to be proposed to the Officers of Parliament Committee. MP Barbara Edmonds currently has a private members’ bill in the biscuit tin to establish this PBO. This would follow the Australian model, providing independent and non-political analysis of the budget cycle and policy proposals.
In February 2025, Te Pāti Māori suggested creating a Parliamentary Commissioner for Te Tiriti o Waitangi to hold the Government to account. Labour leader Chris Hipkins indicated that Labour may be open to this idea, but would need clarity between the role of the proposed Commissioner and the Waitangi Tribunal.
FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENT THROUGH THESE WEBSITES:
Officers of Parliament general information https://www.parliament.nz/mi/visit-andlearn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/ who-are-the-officers-of-parliament/ https://oag.parliament.nz/blog/2025/ independent-oversight?utm_ source=engaging.beehiiv.com&utm_ medium=referral&utm_campaign=engagein-brief-7-april-2025
Officers of Parliament Committee
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/ officers-of-parliament/
Ombudsman general information
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/ about-ombudsman/who-ombudsman
Stefan Speller has worked with the Ministry of Social Development in various roles, currently as a Senior Advisor. Stefan has more than a decade in governance board roles across the education, community, and business sectors. These include as member of Manfeild Park Trust, Employment Advice New Zealand, and Chair of Queen Elizabeth College Board. Stefan is an advisory committee member for Fire and Emergency New Zealand and Hāpai Public, and a committee member with the Institute of Directors. Stefan has a keen interest in public service, law, and the machinery of government.
Controller and Auditor-General general information Office of the Auditor-General
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment general information https://pce.parliament.nz/about-us
THE SPEAKER IS THE CHAIR OF THE OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE.
SOURCE: PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE.
Case Study: Upskilling the workforce in AI
This short case study demonstrates how strategic AI implementation can transform workforce capability while also achieving measurable productivity gains.
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) across New Zealand’s public sector has created both unprecedented opportunities and significant workforce challenges. With the Minister for Digitising Government Judith Collins recently announcing the GovGPT pilot – an AI tool designed to improve public access to government information – it is clear that Aotearoa New Zealand is taking concrete
steps towards digital transformation.
This case study examines how Skills Group, a training and development provider, tackled the challenge of adopting AI within its workforce head-on, implementing innovative strategies to transform the capability of their whole workforce to successfully use AI.
When Skills Group identified that AI would fundamentally disrupt the education and workforce development sector within three to five years, they faced a critical challenge. With over 60 per cent of their 449 employees in vocational training roles not traditionally engaged with digital tools, the risk of being left behind was substantial. Rather than viewing this as merely a learning opportunity, Skills Group recognised it as “a capability risk” that demanded immediate action.
We knew that if we didn’t move fast to build understanding, our people would be left behind by the very systems they rely on every day.
Addressing the AI skills gap head-on “This wasn’t just a learning challenge; it was a capability risk,” explains Claire Le Grice, Head of Capability at Skills Group. “We knew that if we didn’t move fast to build understanding, our people would be left behind by the very systems they rely on every day.” Their response was strategic and
CLAIRE LE GRICE, HEAD OF CAPABILITY AT SKILLS GROUP
comprehensive. The organisation built a cross-functional AI Acceleration Team, developed clear governance policies and created practical tools, including custom GPTs, designed to meet employees where they were in their AI journey. This approach also involved regular training and information sessions about AI usage that staff could attend online.
This approach addressed a fundamental reality that many organisations miss: “The real risk isn’t that people aren’t using AI, because they are, but that they don’t fully understand how it works, what the risks are, or how to use it responsibly.”
THE AI MOVEMENT AT SKILLS GROUP
The real risk isn’t that people aren’t using AI, because they are, but that they don’t fully understand how it works, what the risks are, or how to use it responsibly.
Building a culture of experimentation Skills Group anchored their initiative in their organisational values – grow, bold, joy, and manaakitanga – to shape what they describe as “a movement grounded in trust, not fear”. This cultural foundation proved crucial in overcoming the anxiety many employees feel about AI.
The results speak volumes. Within just one year, 86 per cent of staff engaged in AI
Measurable productivity gains
The business impact of Skills Group’s approach has been substantial and quantifiable:
• The creation of training content (a core part of the work of Skills Group) accelerated by up to 65 per cent.
• Policy design processes became 80 per cent faster, reducing a 3–4 month process to 2–3 weeks.
• Data analysis improved by 30–70 per cent.
• Tenders and reports required 30–40 per cent less reworking while achieving higher quality.
More than metrics, we’ve seen a shift in mindset. People feel more curious and more capable about AI. It has become part of how we think, not just what we use.
upskilling, including nearly half of those in traditionally non-digital roles. The organisation ran six live workshops attended by 386 employees, implemented 31 AI use cases, created 8 in-house GPTs, and explored 18 different AI tools.
By creating psychological safety around technology experimentation, Skills Group transformed potential resistance into enthusiasm. AI became the top skill in the staff’s LinkedIn Learning collections, with 88 unique learners voluntarily seeking additional AI knowledge.
These efficiency gains demonstrate how effective AI upskilling translates directly to organisational performance. However, Skills Group emphasises that “more than metrics, we’ve seen a shift in mindset. People feel more curious and more capable about AI. It has become part of how we think, not just what we use.”
Skills Group’s experience offers valuable insights for those looking to build AI capability:
• Contextualise, don’t just train: “Show how AI is already embedded in everyday tools people use like Microsoft 365, learning management systems, recruitment platforms, etc.” This approach helps employees see AI as an extension of familiar tools rather than something entirely new and threatening.
• Digital fluency ≠ AI fluency: A critical insight from Skills Group is that “even digital native employees need help understanding what responsible AI use looks like”. Technical comfort with digital tools doesn’t automatically translate to
understanding AI’s unique capabilities, limitations, and ethical considerations.
• AI in context: “We’ve embedded AI learning into the context of real work –linking new tools and skills directly to the challenges teams face day to day. Rather than treating AI as an extra task, our aim is to make it part of how people learn, solve problems, and improve impact.”
• Focus on early wins: “Build the case for value early. Look for small wins and real examples that help drive belief and acceptance of AI.” These concrete examples help overcome skepticism and build momentum.
• Frame AI as an enabler, not a replacement: By helping “people see AI
as a partner – something that enables, not replaces,” Skills Group shifted the narrative from job threat to job enhancement.
With a goal of achieving 100 per cent AI capability across their workforce by the end of 2025, Skills Group reminds us that the future of work is rapidly approaching: “Making AI a part of the workplace is not just about technology – it’s about capability, confidence, and context, and understanding that the future isn’t waiting –it’s already here.”
Thanks to HRNZ (Human Resources New Zealand) and Human Resources magazine for permission to re-purpose its original article.
This document presents the strategic framework, tangible results, and detailed metrics of Skills Group’s 2024 AI Upskilling Initiative.
What’s really going on with flexible working in the public sector?
Paula O’Kane, Associate Professor at the University of Otago, and Gillian Brookes, Flexpert and Workforce Strategist, share their research and insights into the world of flexible working within the public sector.
AUTHORS
Associate
Professor Paula O’Kane
Gillian Brookes
PAULA O’KANE: WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL
US?
The global shift to working from home in 2020 launched an unprecedented experiment. In Aotearoa New Zealand, this transition arrived almost overnight, part of a sweeping global adaptation to lockdown life. As an academic who has spent years reviewing and conducting research into remote work, working from home, and flexible work, I’ve observed that flexibility is not a singular concept – it includes place flexibility (where you work), time flexibility (when you work), and increasingly, task flexibility (what you work on). By considering these dimensions together, we can build inclusive, flexible working models that support our diverse talent.
How does it look in Aotearoa New Zealand?
Our 2020 survey of over 2500 New Zealanders, conducted by my colleagues and me near the end of the first lockdown, revealed that over two-thirds of respondents felt more productive working from home – despite limited preparation, inadequate resources, and the inadequacy of remote systems. This productivity boost came not just from quieter environments but from increased autonomy and fewer workplace distractions. However, many participants doubted their employers would continue to support flexible arrangements in the long term. This appears to have come to fruition.
We found similar productivity trends in our 2021 snap lockdown survey, but this also demonstrated that technology and home office setups had not yet caught up to the demands of remote work. By 2025, it’s clear that with the right software, policies, and support, variations of flexibility can be highly effective for many.
Our findings, along with a growing body of global research, consistently demonstrate that remote and flexible work can match or exceed traditional models in productivity, provided it is underpinned by strong leadership and intentional design. Notably from an Aotearoa New Zealand perspective, Professor Jarrod Haar’s longitudinal data set, spanning 10 waves of surveys over five years and more than 10,000 workers, shows that hybrid workers (those working some of the time in the office and some at home) were the most productive and innovative.
What can we learn from other countries?
This resonates with the global context. Bloom et al. (2024) published a randomised control study in Nature using not only subjective measures (often criticised in research) but also objective measures. They found that productivity remained stable or improved in hybrid environments, while job satisfaction and employee retention increased. The study also demonstrated that hybrid work significantly reduced turnover among female staff due to a reduced commute on work from home days and, importantly, had no negative impact on promotions – a concern raised in many prior studies.
It’s vital to acknowledge, and numerous studies also do so, that flexible work isn’t a universally positive experience. In ours and other research, social isolation was a recurring theme – many missed daily interactions, particularly those in creative roles or living alone. Invisibility, linked to opportunity, is also raised, particularly when different employees have different working models, although Bloom et al.’s study didn’t support this finding. This reinforces the need to make flex work; it isn’t for everyone, and personalisation and job crafting are key concepts that can be used to support effective flex. Even traditional frontline roles can be adapted to include some hybrid options. For example, nurses might work from home one regular shift to focus on professional development or administrative tasks. With a little creativity and flexibility, more roles can support flexible work.
Lessons to apply
A key takeaway from the rapidly growing body of post-pandemic research is that flexible working enhances wellbeing and performance – but only when it is well managed. It’s not a one-size-fits-all model. The success of flexible arrangements depends on the individual, the role, the organisation, and even the national context. The best results come from approaches that enable autonomy, foster trust, and are embedded in supportive workplace cultures.
IMAGE BY FREEPIK
Hybrid work is often held up as the future –offering both connection and focus. But it requires more than policy; it needs strategic thinking and leadership accountability. High-quality jobs are defined by control and autonomy, not constant oversight. In the evolving world of artificial intelligence, we will see more high-quality jobs, as the routine processes are removed from professional roles. Talent management strategies must reflect this, especially in a post-pandemic world where employees increasingly prioritise balance, purpose, and flexibility over pay alone.
If we want flexibility to work, we must design it to work – for everyone.
High-quality jobs are defined by control and autonomy, not constant oversight.
GILLIAN BROOKES: HOW CAN FLEXIBLE WORKING LOOK IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR?
I’ve worked with over 20 public sector organisations on their flexible work practice over the last six years. In that time I’ve learned to find the signal among the noise. And there is a lot of noise. The signal, when you boil it down, is a leadership concern around accountability to the public. I work with leaders who have legitimate questions about how their teams’ ways of working deliver value, real and perceived, back to New Zealanders.
The noise and the signal
The noise is worth considering, because it takes up most of our energy. When it comes to flex, there are two categories. One is about making sure flexibility is effective, given that it is
here to stay. The other is about trying to make it go away by putting office mandates in place or monitoring employees to the point of eroding trust.
Let’s deal with the second category first: making flex go away. All the evidence points to this being nothing but a pipedream, or nightmare, as many would experience it. Postpandemic we saw an acceleration, which has plateaued, in working from home as part of a hybrid work pattern. It’s enabled easier access to high-quality work for various groups of people, especially working parents and people with disabilities. If we take these flexible options away, we can expect to see a lot of talented people leave the organisation. While they’re looking for their next role, they’ll not be doing their best work, feeling disengaged and disheartened.
I have empathy for why some leaders want to make it go away. They know how to deliver effectively with a workforce that’s gathered together at the same time and place. When you have public accountability you don’t want to take unnecessary risks and mess with a tried and true recipe. The trouble is, it is no longer tried and true, because the context has changed significantly and irreversibly. If we can collectively accept that as true, we can focus our energy solely on making sure flexible work is effective and delivers that all-important public accountability.
Drive effective flexibility – the challenge If we agree that hybrid work is here to stay, we need to do it well. The most common challenges I see are:
• disconnected teams with a lack of cohesion, creativity, and innovation
• managing performance with a lack of visibility, shifting from managing inputs (time in the office) to outputs and performance
• risk of an entitlement culture as people do what works for them, even if it creates problems for colleagues
• the ‘always on’ risk and blurred boundaries between work and home. The rise in popularity overseas of ‘Right to Disconnect’ legislation shows the scale of this challenge.
There are skills to learn to overcome these common challenges, but it is possible to acquire them and put them into practice to make sure flexibility isn’t so fraught.
Drive effective flexibility – the opportunity What is crucially missing in most organisations is clarity about what we want in return for flexibility. This is where the opportunity lies. There is so much to choose from, eg, performance, productivity, a workforce and decision makers that better reflect Aotearoa New Zealand, lower costs through lower turnover and reduced wage inflation, higher wellbeing, higher engagement, lower sickness absence, lower employee turnover, lower burnout risk and stress levels, support net zero strategy … the list goes on.
We need better governance if we want assurance that flex is delivering on its promised opportunities. As leaders (or politicians) we can set the outcome we expect, picking from the long list of options and provide accountability through driving and reporting on those metrics.
What about the frontline?
The public sector has been predominantly focused on flexible work as synonymous with hybrid work, which is only suitable for deskbased workers. Unfortunately we’re creating a two-tier workforce of the ‘haves’ and ‘have
nots’, so we need to urgently broaden our focus beyond working from home for the desk-based workforce and consider the frontline.
According to The Public Service Commission 55 per cent of public servants (not all public sector) do not typically work from home. This doesn’t include all the teachers and hospital workers etc, which would make that figure higher. This is the next frontier if we want to deliver better value to New Zealanders through effective flexibility across the entire public sector.
I’m working with the construction industry to bring flexibility to site-based work. We can do this in the public sector, too. We have a talent drain overseas for these skilled people, and they’re often at risk of burnout. If we can’t compete internationally on wages, we need to compete on conditions and lifestyle, which puts flexibility firmly on the frontline.
Associate Professor Paula O’Kane is a researcher and educator in Human Resource Management at the Otago Business School, University of Otago. Her work focuses on performance management, flexible work, employee voice, and the evolving nature of work in Aotearoa New Zealand. With a strong commitment to student engagement and applied learning, Paula also leads initiatives in Work Integrated Learning, connecting students with real-world HR experiences. Her research is published in leading international journals and contributes to shaping inclusive and forwardthinking HR practices.
Gillian Brookes, Chartered Fellow of HRNZ, runs a small consultancy, focused on leading for a better future of work. She is best known for her work as a flexible work specialist, evolving flexible work in practice for better results. She is the author of Flexperts - Getting the best from flex in a world that’s ever changing, published in 2023 and leads the UK-based Timewise social-impact business across Australia and New Zealand, with a focus on bringing more flexibility to the frontline.
“You are your own expert”
Finlay Field, a member of Hāpai Public’s New Professionals Leadership Team, summarises professional coach Sophia Weithaler’s job interview tips for New Professionals.
AUTHOR Finlay Field
On a windy April evening in Pōneke, professional coach Sophia Weithaler joined the Hāpai Public New Professionals for snacks, networking, and an interviewing masterclass. Whatever your next career step, Sophia is full of great tips to land the role you are after.
Tip 1: Be ready
There’s no such thing as being over-prepared, says Sophia. You’ll want to prepare most of your answers in advance – at least 75 per cent of what you’ll use in the job interview. Picture these responses as items on a shelf, ready to be
There’s no such thing as being overprepared, says Sophia. You’ll want to prepare most of your answers in advance – at least 75 per cent of what you’ll use in the job interview.
picked up and rearranged when needed. Avoid the panic of making up answers on the spot, or your best example coming to you on the bus ride home.
One good way to stock this shelf is with a career journal. Find time each Friday to think about what you’ve done well that week. It could be a meeting you felt well-prepared for, or support you lent to another team. Jot it down, and you’ll build a collection to draw from under pressure.
And don’t forget to save good feedback! We can be our own worst critics – your best work might be done in a hard week, and our kaimahi can help remind us of the wins.
Tip 2: Be organised
Journalling might be your first step to getting organised. Next, tick off your LinkedIn – does it reflect who you are, what you’re passionate about, and what you’ve achieved?
Then check your CV. Sophia recommends three versions: this includes a comprehensive ‘DNA’ CV, where you keep track of all your experience throughout your career, and a shortform, one-page CV for quick reference; you might hear about an opportunity before a full job description exists, or be applying speculatively.
The third type, a CV tailored to a specific job description, is crucial. Use the CAR model (Challenge, Approach, Result) to keep your descriptions concise – and avoid generic descriptions like ‘Key Responsibilities Included’.
If you’re asked to provide a cover letter, “don’t make the hiring manager work hard!” Use it to clearly outline your key competencies (more on that below).
Tip 3: Be a STAR Applications can feel overwhelming, but you can start with simple steps. Read up on the organisation and check online for their competencies framework. What does success look like in this workplace?
Then turn to the role description. Highlight everything that points to one of those competencies and compare them against your CV. Will you have multiple examples of each to discuss? You may need to check your shelf. If there are gaps, think about what you can fill them with. You’ll want at least two to three examples per competency.
Interviewers can ask a range of questions, but many readers will be familiar with the STAR model: breaking down an answer into a Situation, Task, Action, and Result. It’s a concise way to discuss your work.
Sophia suggests going the extra mile with STAR by offering how you would apply that experience in this role.
Bear it in mind when you’re giving an answer – talk about what you did and what you enabled your team to do. Remember who the interviewer wants to hire – you, not your team!
“It’s great to be self-effacing,” Sophia suggests, “but not in an interview.” An interview is about “you on your best day”.
“It’s great to be self-effacing,” Sophia suggests, “but not in an interview.”
An interview is about “you on your best day”.
Tip 4: Practice, Practice, Practice
Feeling comfortable is crucial to a good interview. What would make you feel comfortable, perhaps with a panel you’ve never met before?
For Sophia, there’s no single answer, although increasingly, she’s suggesting her clients try AI tools. With a model like GPT-4o, you can role play the back and forth of an interview (and even add in your success criteria, like the STAR model or those key competencies).
Practise in the bathroom mirror, practise on your walk to work, practise until you feel comfortable. You might not get 100 per cent of the way there, but remember, Sophia says, that the interviewer is as anxious as you are to find the right candidate. And when describing your own experience, there is no one better: “You are your own expert.”
Tip 5: Be engaged
By the time you get to the big day, you’ve done most of the work. There are a few things still to consider: open up your body language, share your eye contact between the panel, and keep your answers between three and four minutes. Crucially, Sophia says, maintain your energy –don’t leave yourself exhausted at the end.
At the end of the day, moving jobs is a big decision! The job interview is your chance to double-check the role fits you. Ensure you’re well-prepared and make the most of it.
The Hāpai Public New Professionals Network connects people who are in the first 10 years of their public sector career. We’re grateful for Sophia’s time, and for letting us share her wisdom with Public Sector journal readers. To find out more about the New Professionals network, check out the website link here: hapaipublic.org.nz/new-professionals
Finlay Field is a Policy Adviser for the UK Government’s Science and Technology Network, based at the British High Commission in Wellington. He leads the UK in New Zealand’s work on artificial intelligence. His previous employers in New Zealand and Europe include the UK Department for Business and Trade and non-governmental organisations.
Book review
Hāpai Public’s Executive Director Kay Booth reviews The Coming Wave: Technology, Power and the Twenty-First Century’s Greatest Dilemma by Mustafa Suleyman with Michael Bhaskar.
AUTHOR Kay Booth
Lately, I’ve been having a lot of conversations about AI that quickly focus on a specific feature of this emerging technology, which got me thinking: what does the ‘bigger picture’ look like? If you’ve ever wondered the same thing, this book provides the answer.
Authored by an industry leader, this ambitious book presents big (and scary) ideas in a very readable narrative that is littered with real-life examples. Characterising AI (and synthetic biology) as an incoming technology wave (geographers will love this book), its central question is how do we ensure that it does more good than harm? After all, we are talking about technology that will surpass our own intelligence and can engineer new life.
It identifies a central dilemma – that while we need the benefits of AI more than ever (to address global threats to our future), we risk a dystopian future if we fail to contain its negative repercussions. Describing this as the great meta-problem of the 21st century, Mustafa Suleyman is clear that bold action is required. There is potential that technology might shift to become a net negative influence on our lives, after we have backed ourselves into a corner with no way out (the author does not pull his punches).
He sets the scene with a fascinating historical account, addressing what causes technology waves to develop, and asks whether society has ever successfully contained a new technology. Spoiler alert: the answer is no. The historical pattern is a proliferation of technology with sprawling consequences, many unintended. The message is clear – we are not good at managing the technology we create.
The incoming wave of AI is discussed from the premise that its future impact is significantly understated. AI’s ability to learn and adapt takes technology to the next level – and the need for controls is equally amplified.
Biotechnology receives similar analysis. Coupled with AI, in the words of the author: “Welcome to the age of synthetic life.”
I found the most powerful (and daunting) part of the book was the discussion of the political
implications of the “colossal redistribution of power” that this technology brings, including the effects upon public trust in the State at the very time its institutions are most needed.
Just as AI is omnipresent – its impacts will cut across every part of our lives – its repercussions are equally pervasive. This difference in scale marks it out from previous waves of technology.
Finally, the author turns to what can be done. He outlines 10 steps to confront the dilemma, including actions for government that must go beyond regulation.
I wanted a helicopter view of AI – and this book delivered in spades. It’s an engrossing but confronting read that is well worth it.
Dr Kay Booth is the Executive Director of Hāpai Public, a role she loves because of the amazing people and stimulating ideas she encounters every day. Previously, Kay has been an academic, consultant, and public servant. She sees untapped opportunity for cross-fertilisation across sectors and for public professionals to learn from each other. Her goal is to make Hāpai Public a community of learning and practice that helps public professionals realise their full potential and ‘feel at home’ within the public sector. She is an AI novice.
Did you know? About the Press Gallery
New Zealand’s Parliamentary Press Gallery serves as a vital bridge between elected representatives and the public. It helps ensure transparency and accountability in government. But how much do you know about it?
1
2
WHY DO WE HAVE A PRESS GALLERY?
The Press Gallery facilitates independent scrutiny of the New Zealand Government’s actions. In place since 1870, it recognises that effective governance requires informed citizens. By providing journalists direct access to parliamentary proceedings at the Beehive and Parliament House, the Press Gallery can ensure that New Zealanders receive timely and accurate information about decisions affecting their lives. This transparency is fundamental to maintaining trust in New Zealand’s democratic institutions. The term Press Gallery generally refers to the group of journalists (vs an actual physical gallery) who are granted full-time access to the government and Parliament to cover proceedings.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PRESS GALLERY?
In the Press Gallery journalists can witness parliamentary debates first-hand. It also allows journalists and reporters to question ministers and MPs, and then report, explain, and critique any happenings. It’s both a competitive and collaborative environment for journalists to work in. Journalists from the various news outlets, TV channels, and newspapers will all be working on getting their exclusive stories. At the same time, it’s sometimes helpful for journalists to work together and have strength in numbers, if ministers are avoiding questions, for example. This makes for a unique working environment.
WHO’S ALLOWED TO BE IN THE PRESS GALLERY? HOW DO YOU GET IN?
Access to New Zealand’s Press Gallery is limited to accredited journalists from recognised news organisations. The New Zealand Parliamentary Press Gallery Association manages the accreditation process, requiring applicants to demonstrate they work for legitimate media outlets with significant public audiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. This includes journalists from major outlets like Radio New Zealand, TVNZ, NZ Herald, Stuff, and international correspondents. Applications go through the Association, which reviews credentials, ensures journalists understand parliamentary protocols, and coordinates with the Parliamentary Service for security clearances. Here is the current list of accredited members of the Press Gallery (over 120).
5
WHAT DOES A STANDARD SITTING WEEK IN THE PRESS GALLERY LOOK LIKE?
The first significant event of the week is the Prime Minister’s post-Cabinet press conference, generally held on Monday afternoons. Journalists from the Press Gallery can ask the Prime Minister questions for about half an hour. After that, journalists will work on different stories – whether it’s for online, radio, TV, or print. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, the House sits and in the afternoons journalists can ask politicians questions on the ‘bridge run’, where MPs will walk across ‘the bridge’ of black and white tiles (between the Beehive and Parliament House) and walk into the House. On Wednesdays and Thursdays journalists can listen in to Select Committee Hearings. Fridays are usually quieter for journalists, as MPs are typically in their constituencies.
WHERE IS IT?
The Press Gallery occupies two locations within Parliament Buildings in Wellington. One is a hallway of mini-newsrooms and offices (including broadcast facilities), each for a different outlet or publication (located on the ground floor of Parliament House). The second is situated behind the Speaker, where the Press Gallery has a designated seating area overlooking the main debating chamber, offering unobstructed views, and separate from the general public seating area.
Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand
PO Box 5032, Wellington 6140, New Zealand office@hapaipublic.org.nz hapaipublic.org.nz