Public Sector
Strategic foresight: An essential part of responsible government
Social investment: Capturing the full value of the return
Public sector integrity: Forging stronger bonds of public integrity
Parliament in Practice seminar
Parliament in Practice is a one-day seminar offering a unique, behind-the-scenes look at how Parliament operates – delivered by those who work within it and uphold its core responsibilities.
Wednesday 29 October Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings
Interested? Check it out here
“Fabulous presenters…you get to hear from different people in different roles with different perspectives…you really get the whole picture”
Effective Engagement with Māori workshop
Join Hāpai Public for a two-day workshop to deepen your historical and cultural understanding and strengthen your engagement with Māori.
Monday 10 and Tuesday 11 November Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington Workshop presented by Piripi Winiata
Interested? Check it out here
“Inspiring. Such an amazing opportunity – a perfect balance of law, practical advice, stories, history, and insights.”
When independence counts
Reliable, independent, non-partisan data underpins good decision-making by the public and private sector, and our democratic system. Inflation and unemployment data are used to set interest rates, which affect everyday New Zealanders’ wages, mortgages, and loans, and underpin investment decisions. Every three years, voters use these and other numbers to assess how well the incumbent government has been ‘running the country’. In this way, Stats NZ is one of our ‘integrity institutions’.
Which is why when Donald Trump sacked the Chief Statistician of the Bureau of Labour Statistics last month, saying the weak job market numbers were “rigged” to hurt him politically, it created shock waves globally. It has also drawn attention to the fact that in the United States, it is only convention and propriety that prevent this step from being taken.
We have seen this happen before in other countries. In Greece, the former Chief Statistician was removed and criminally prosecuted by the government after revealing years of under-reported debt levels and deficits1. And in Argentina, the government removed the statisticians responsible for inflation data and then released its own significantly lower inflation figures. As a result the international community stopped relying on Argentina’s data.
Getting the numbers technically right matters. But given that there is always a degree of technical judgement involved, what is even more important is that the numbers are seen to be independent. Any hint of government manipulation can undermine trust and confidence in future data.
In New Zealand we recognise the importance of both the reality and the perception of this independence in the particular way the Government Statistician – the Chief Executive of Stats NZ – is appointed under the Public Services Act 2020. Unlike other departmental chief executives, the statutory process involving the Minister for the Public Services and the Governor-General outlined in my last message does not apply. Instead, the appointment is made and published directly by the Public Services Commissioner or the Deputy Public Services Commissioner.
The Public Service Amendment Bill 2025 makes what might be seen to be a ‘minor change’ by shifting the Government Statistician appointment clauses out of the Public Service Act 2020 into the Data and Statistics Act 2022. Machinery-of-government changes, however small, send coded signals about priorities. What is the rationale for this change? Given the importance of the statutory independence of the role, one would hope that it is linked to a clear strategy rather than simply ‘tidiness’. I have yet to see evidence of this.
Ā PAI PUBLIC PRESIDENT
Liz MacPherson
H
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
Tanita Bidois, Jonathan Boston, Jo Cribb, Aphra Green, Sophie Handford, Farheen Hussain, Andrew Jackson, Natalie James, Michael Macaulay, Liz MacPherson, Adithi Pandit, Kate Sutton, Kathy Young
JOURNAL ADVISORY
GROUP
Barbara Allen, Ayesha Arshad, Kay Booth, 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.
Cover images: telescope by Vextok on Freepik, pathway and signage by Freepik 01
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
12
ANALYSIS
Ngā ara ki te kāinga: Understanding barriers and solutions to women’s homelessness in Aotearoa
Tanita Bidois and Jo Cribb highlight critical policy gaps, and advocate for gendered policy solutions to women’s homelessness in New Zealand.
Strategic foresight: A waste of time or an essential part of responsible government?
Andrew Jackson considers what strategic foresight is, why so little attention is devoted to it, what could change, and what we can learn from other countries.
08
INSIGHTS
Forging stronger bonds of public integrity
Michael Macaulay, Professor of Public Administration at the School of Government Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, argues that integrity is the golden thread running through all aspects of government.
15
PUBLIC SERVICE SYSTEM
Amending the Public Service Act: Goals, proposals, and prospects
Jonathan Boston, Emeritus Professor at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, reviews the proposed amendments to the 2020 Public Service Act and offers his own assessment.
18
INSIGHTS
Public Service Commissioner
Sir Brian Roche’s vision for change
Speaking at a recent Hāpai Public webinar, Sir Brian Roche outlines his assessment of the public service system and what needs to change.
20
INVESTIGATION
Why does Aotearoa New Zealand need a Future Generations Act?
Sophie Handford outlines how a Future Generations Act could create a democracy that serves both current and future citizens.
22
FOCUS
Social investment: Capturing the full value of the return
Natalie James from MartinJenkins discusses how to ensure social investment decisions are grounded in evidence that captures the full value of what’s achieved.
24
REFLECTIONS
100 years of the Harkness Fellowships and why these fellowships matter to you
Aphra Green outlines the history of these fellowships and the opportunity they offer mid-career public servants.
26
FOCUS
Built to deliver: Global trends to accelerate government delivery
Kate Sutton and Adithi Pandit from Deloitte New Zealand outline that New Zealand’s public sector must accelerate its pace of change to transform public service delivery.
28
BOOK REVIEW
Journalist-turned-governance student Farheen Hussain reviews Stepping Up: COVID-19 Checkpoints and Rangatiratanga by Luke Fitzmaurice and Maria Bargh.
29
DID YOU KNOW?
The origins of some common terms
Learn more about the origins of these five common parliamentary terms.
Strategic foresight: A waste of time or an essential part of responsible government?
Andrew
Jackson, Policy Hub, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, considers what strategic foresight is, why so little attention or resource is devoted to foresight, what we could learn from other countries, and what he recommends for change.
Making sure a country has a good future is one of the many things that comes with good leadership. This can only happen if the opportunities and risks that arise are carefully thought through. This is sometimes called anticipatory governance. Strategic foresight is a method that guides countries in finding the biggest opportunities and risks that may arise in the future (Boston, 2016).
The Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to put in place a long-term plan which covers at least the next 10 years and looks out 30 years in relation to investments in major infrastructure. There is no such requirement on central government in New Zealand to produce a long-term plan for New Zealand. As the government of the day drives to deliver their immediate priorities, foresight can be quickly sidelined.
What is foresight and what is strategic foresight?
There are two ways to think about foresight. Firstly, viewing foresight as a response to things which are outside our control. A simple example would be a game of chess, where we respond to opportunities or risks. The second way of thinking about foresight is to decide the future we want and take actions to try to realise that future. For example, undertaking a good training programme so I can run a marathon.
There is no single common definition of ‘strategic foresight’ when used in the context of an approach to help government decisionmaking; whether to prepare for uncertainties or to shape the future.
There are, however, some key common aspects which are essential. Strategic foresight:
considers the future of a specific issue. For example, ‘How can New Zealand achieve a low emissions society by 2040?’ Strategic foresight must start with a clear and specific question to direct the focus of the work?
takes a systematic approach. Strategic foresight starts from what we know and uses a structured framework for the analysis so that the assumptions which underpin the conclusions of what the future could hold are clear.
seeks to inform action. It should be responding to a need and as such provide outputs which will inform action to respond to the findings.
Across governmental organisations around the world, ‘futures thinking’ encompasses several related concepts used for anticipating future possibilities. The New Zealand Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) uses the terms ‘futures thinking’, ‘foresight’, ‘strategic foresight’, and ‘futures studies’ interchangeably. In the United Kingdom, ‘futures’ refers to systematic approaches for thinking about future possibilities, while ‘foresight’ specifically denotes the application of methodological tools like horizon scanning and scenario development. The European Union defines ‘strategic foresight’ as an activity embedding structured anticipatory practices into policymaking to develop transition pathways, build resilience to shocks, and shape desired futures, while ‘futures thinking’ represents the mindset enabling these practices.
Why foresight is difficult to resource and why the results of foresight are rarely taken seriously.
Every government faces the difficult trade-off between investing in the short and long term. It is hard to justify investing in future risks and opportunities when there are so many current pressing needs. Current needs are there now, can be counted and are real, but the future is uncertain.
“Want of foresight, unwillingness to act... lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong, these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.” Winston Churchill
AUTHOR
Andrew Jackson
IMAGE BY 8PHOTO ON FREEPIK
Democracy does not help with this, as the political imperative is to focus on the short term. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer said:
“The very structure of the Government decision making system is geared to meet the needs of the present and its problems, not to deal with the future and its problems.”
Also, there are certain tools which have become embedded in assessment of policy which are seen as the ‘gold standard’ to underpin decisions – notably economic analysis and cost benefit analysis. This is in contrast to tools which explore uncertainty, such as strategic foresight tools, which are not mainstream and as such are less accepted.
Ignoring the impact of the decisions we take today on the future creates significant risks and as such it is morally irresponsible. Put at its simplest – good public governance makes wise judgements which balance the needs of today with the long-term outcomes of those decisions.
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL VENN DIAGRAM
Net debt unsustainable If expenditure and revenue follow historical trends, national debt will reach 197% by 2061 Treasury LTIB
NZ productivity is weak Productivity Commission Labour productivity is 61% of the US IR LTIB
Falling infrastructure $185 billion of investment is needed in water infrastructure by 2050 DIA
10% of NZ children experiencing material hardship MSD
15-25 year olds with high levels of psychological stress has increased from 5 to 19% in the last 10 years Treasury Wellbeing report
Declining trust Voting in local elections has decreased from 57% to 42% over the last 20 years Stats NZ
Buildings uninsurable 133,000 New Zealanders live less than 1.5m above high-water mark so will be at risk from storm surges, with 10,000 houses uninsurable by 2050 NIWA
Degrading environment We are losing 192 million tonnes of soil a year from erosion, nutrient imbalance and microporosity Landcare
The trap is that insights from foresight work often remain ideas on a page that do not see the light of day and certainly have little or no impact on policy decisions.
Biodiversity threat with 1000 of New Zealand taxa under threat MfE
©A Jackson
Lessons from international approaches to foresight
Balancing immediate and long-term issues is not unique to New Zealand.
There is increasing international recognition of the need for good long-term thinking. This is driven by issues such as the need to address global inequities and climate change. However, it is perhaps the more recent series of global challenges (Covid-19, Ukraine war, US tariffs) that has been the most significant driver of international recognition of the need to be better prepared for the future. The interplay between these crises and the consequent impact on the energy prices, stability of supply chains, and consumer inflation has led to social pressure for change and growing interest in how to balance the interests of today with the interests of tomorrow through good public governance.
The School of International Futures provided a paper for the UN Summit of the Future which looked at the approach 24 countries took to ensure public governance achieved a good balance between the short and long term.
©A Jackson
Key findings from the work included:
• In most nations there are pockets of excellence and innovation in the use of foresight to inform policy.
• The emphasis placed on long-term public governance varies over time and with political party.
• In democratic nations, models that are key to good long-term public governance include:
• having a cross-party parliamentary group, holding the government to account on long-term impacts of their decisions
• each government setting a long-term plan at the start of its term in government
• having senior level public sector leaders who recognise the importance of long-term thinking
• building cohorts of officials and academics with capabilities to undertake strategic foresight
• having independent bodies, which may be parts of universities, who inform national debate on difficult long-term issues.
Where do we stand in New Zealand? Individual government departments have used foresight to explore and inform consideration of specific topics. The McGuiness Institute has a database of 288 New Zealand scenarios published over the last 23 years.
New Zealand also has an array of commissioners who consider intergenerational
issues: the Children’s Commissioner, Families’ Commissioner, the Retirement Commissioner, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Some of our businesses also use foresight tools. The External Reporting Board, which sets financial reporting standards for New Zealand, requires large listed companies to use scenarios to assess their climate risks. This exercise has again created a wealth of information on the climate risks for 13 New Zealand sectors.
But a central and coordinated approach to long-term thinking in New Zealand’s public sector has waxed and waned. New Zealand invested in long-term planning in the 1960s with a series of Industrial Conferences and then National Development Conferences. In the late 1970s the New Zealand Planning Act (1977) established the Planning Council and the Commission for the Future. However, these institutes went out of favour, with the Commission of the Future being closed in 1982 and the Planning Council closing in 1990.
At the start of this decade there was a resurgence of interest in long-term thinking. The Public Service Act 2020 created expectations of stewardship by the public sector. Notably, section 52 of the Act required chief executives to provide advice on the longterm implications of policies, and Schedule 6 of the Public Service Act created a requirement for each department to undertake one piece of long-term thinking once every three years (long-term insight briefings [LTIBs]). In the first
Confidence in the national government to balance the interests of current and future generations % of population, 2023
Confident Neutral Not confident Don’t know
round 19 LTIBs were produced. All were well written and contained a wealth of useful information.
But we are on a pathway to pull back from these changes with the Public Service Amendment Bill repealing section 52 of the Public Service Act and reducing the number of LTIBs produced each term of government to just one.
At present there is no central effort to build capability, support these activities, join these activities up, or develop a longer-term plan for the nation. As such we face a three-yearly shift in investment priorities, wasting billions of dollars as half completed activities are halted. We continue to think of foresight in only one way – how we can respond to the uncertainties ahead, rather than providing a clear view of the future that we should aim for, for ourselves, our tamariki, and our mokopuna.
Recommendations for New Zealand
I have looked at what helps address the balance between short and long-term thinking across the world. Based on that review, the three wishes I have to ensure a good future for New Zealand’s tamariki and our mokopuna are:
• The establishment of a cross-party group in Parliament which considers and advises on long-term issues.
• A socially driven expectation of a 10-year national plan. At the start of each Parliament the government of the day would work with New Zealand citizens to create a 10-year plan.
• A public sector system leader on longterm policy thinking with dedicated funding to support the delivery of strategic foresight reports.
Andrew Jackson spent 30 years in senior roles in the public sectors of New Zealand and the United Kingdom working on foresight, policy, and regulatory design. He was the managing director of a strategy and futures consulting company. He is now the Co-Director of the Policy Hub, which seeks to connect New Zealand’s academic and policy communities to support evidence informed policy.
Join Hāpai Public and the School of Government Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington on 8 October 2025 ‘Leading for Those Not Yet Born - Tools for Long-Term Policymaking’ - register here
Forging stronger bonds of public integrity
Michael Macaulay, Professor of Public Administration at the School of Government Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, argues that integrity is the golden thread running through all aspects of government – not an afterthought.
AUTHOR
Professor Michael Macaulay
Picture this. A group of the world’s finest engineers get together to design and build a new bridge across a broad, turbulent river. The plans are drawn up, ground is broken, and construction begins. After several years, and hundreds of millions of dollars, the bridge is completed and opened to the public. It is immensely popular, serving tens of thousands of vehicles and innumerable levels of foot traffic in its first three years alone. Then, and only then, do the engineers reconvene and ask, “Isn’t it about time we thought about the bridge’s structural integrity?”
Such a scenario would be criminal, yet it is all too common an approach to public integrity in terms of both politics and the Public Service. We need to stop this naivety. Integrity is not an additional extra; it is not a separate organisational component; it is not a unit. Integrity is the golden thread that runs throughout all forms of governance; the umbrella under which rests all other values: fairness, trust, honesty, responsibility, efficiency, effectiveness.
Integrity is not its own thing; it is everything. If any politician or public service leader is serious about strengthening public integrity, they must start there.
Why do people do bad things?
Crudely put, people break rules and engage in misconduct because of a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. For public service integrity, apart from a small number of cases, we can rule out the former. Public Service Motivation is a real phenomenon, tried and tested. It guarantees that hundreds of thousands of people commit to work that is people-focused and looks to achieve good
Integrity is not its own thing; it is everything.
outcomes. This is no less true in Aotearoa New Zealand than in any other country. As Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission’s workforce data on ‘spirit of service’ shows, the single biggest motivator for joining the Public Service is to engage in “work that contributes positively to society”.
What, then, of extrinsic motivation? Here, there are two key distinctions: inducements and coercion. Inducements can again be ruled out almost entirely: Aotearoa New Zealand’s instances of bribery are so low as to make us the envy of the world, and our corruption issues are demonstrably not associated with open bribery, except in the rarest of cases.
IMAGE BY RAWPIXEL.COM ON FREEPIK
Coercion is thus the biggest cause of misconduct, and this can be distinguished into several dimensions. Personal coercion includes threats, intimidation, and bullying, which all previous research has shown is the number one public service integrity issue now and of the last 30 years (at least). Then there is environmental coercion, frequently driven by poor leadership and manifested in toxic work cultures. Finally, there is structural coercion that creates integrity fault lines: managerial practices, constitutional relationships, and even our political system itself.
The relationship between structural coercion and public integrity cannot be overstated because the very moral foundations of politics and the Public Service are different. These dimensions are not necessarily oppositional, but they certainly can be, and herein lies the source of much anxiety about integrity.
Intrinsic motivation
• Greed
• Revenge
• Discontent
• Incompetence
Inducements
• Bribes
Extrinsic motivation
Coercion
Personal Cultural Structural
• Threats
• Intimidation
• Bullying
• Leadership
• Processes
• Training
• Orientation
• In-groups and out-groups
• Normalisation
• Implantation
• Political pressure
• Preverse incentives
• Performance gamification
• Legal protections
• Employment protections
Put simply, the moral foundation of politics is consequentialism: outcomes of policy and legislative decisions, the people they impact, and the ways in which they are impacted. Public Service, on the other hand, is deontological; it is based on obligations and duty. The chief question here is, to whom are those obligations owed, and what parameters exist around them? These are not abstract, philosophical arguments – they are matters of everyday practice. Public integrity is not an abstraction or an ideal; it is a concrete, practical, lived reality.
Recent developments
The moral foundations above are themselves enshrined in our legislation and the constitutional roles of the Westminster system: they are the bedrock of our democratic governance. Section 11 of the Public Service Act 2020 denotes the centrality of duty as the very purpose of the Public Service:
The public service supports constitutional and democratic government, enables both the current Government and successive governments to develop and implement their policies, delivers high-quality and efficient public services, supports the Government to pursue the long-term public interest, facilitates active citizenship, and acts in accordance with the law.
It should be noted that the newly revised Public Service Amendment Bill 2025 does not alter the centrality of duty, nor does it alter the accountability mechanisms established by the Public Service Act 2020 in regard to the public service principles of political neutrality, free and frank advice, merit-based appointments, open government, and stewardship. Each of these principles is a hard-won foundation for public service integrity, and it is good to see their importance has not been lessened in any way. This does not mean the principles always work
in practice. Bullying remains an unyielding blight on public service life, as has been evidenced yet again by the recent deep dive in the Public Service Commission Census data on inappropriate behaviour at work. Perhaps more problematic, however, is that the same data finds a great deal of distrust around meritocratic appointments: indeed, only a minority of respondents in the census believe that merit-based appointments are a day-today reality in the Public Service.
This concern around merit-based appointments matches that found by IPANZ (now Hāpai Public) and BusinessDesk in their 2022 survey of public servants. So this data appears to reflect a longer-term concern or trend.
Perhaps it is indicative of Wellington’s microculture of public servants, where it’s almost impossible not to know everybody else, and in which networking is a lifeblood of careers. Or perhaps it’s time to alter the language we use around such issues, as we would when applying our double standards to other cultures and different international jurisdictions. What respondents are alluding to here is not a failure of merit-based appointments; it is cronyism, plain and simple.
Cronyism is a perfect example of an integrity issue at the very heart of the structure and culture of an organisation. Who and why we appoint speaks to the very lifeblood of the Public Service; to the principle of ability and talent, which has multiple impacts all the way down the HR pipeline. It corrodes work relationships and leads to dwindling trust between colleagues, both horizontally and vertically. It promotes an unhealthy integrity environment.
Just in case any reader thinks I am being alarmist, please look again at the Public Service Commission’s own findings below: 95 per
cent of public servants believe that political neutrality is robust; 91 per cent believe they promote open government; 87 per cent believe they are contributing to the stewardship of Aotearoa New Zealand. Less than half of all respondents believe their colleagues got their job through talent. If that doesn’t startle you, please feel free to skip the rest of this article.
Moving forward
To be a person of integrity is to have alignment between one’s beliefs and one’s actions, and to demonstrate that alignment consistently over time. The same is equally valid with public integrity at large. And to its enormous credit, much of the Public Service of Aotearoa New Zealand understands and acknowledges this.
The Office of the Auditor-General, for example, has recently produced the second edition of its integrity framework, and it is an admirable piece of work for numerous reasons. To begin, it understands the underpinning nature of integrity, which is reflected in its emphasis on the cohesiveness of different components. Second, it acknowledges that integrity also needs balance: between behaviour and procedures; leadership and followership; external rules and the internal lives of individuals. Finally, it also stresses the importance of reiteration and reflection.
Another positive development is the creation of Public Service Integrity Champions in 2023 by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission. There are currently 62 champions of whom about 40 work for government departments and the rest within selected Crown entities. Their role is both reactive and proactive. In 2024 champions offered 128 pieces of advice on integrity matters. Collectively they have also looked forward to broader issues such as protected disclosures and conflicts of interest. It is a nascent role, however, and we do not know exactly how active champions may be, nor the possible constraints from them being
I am confident that in my organisation people get jobs based on merit
I have a good understanding of what it means to be politically neutral public servant
It’s important to me that my organisation is open and transparent with the public
My organisation is working for the long-term good for New Zealand
Source: Te Taunaki | Public Service Census 2025
as active as they would wish. But it is refreshing to see such a proactive approach, and one that permeates throughout each agency of the Public Service.
By the time this article is published there will also have been consultation on the second long-term insights briefing, The Future of Public Service Integrity, which was open between June and August this year. The
briefing is very welcome, and in its magisterial outline of the public service integrity system, it illustrates the key theme here: that it is extensive but lacks coherence, coordination, and, as a result, its own integrity.
Final thoughts
In his admirable 1996 book, Integrity, Stephen Carter highlighted the “paradox of integrity”, in which people act in accordance with
Drive for delivery meets fiscal reality - What will give first?
their values, but those same values may be destructive or harmful to others. How, then, does the person of integrity make a change? Carter’s answer is to engage in conscious, critical reflection, which is essential not only for individuals but for organisations. Every time we think we have found a peak of integrity, we should be aware that there is always a new part of the mountain to which we must ascend. Our third, and final, major point then is the simplest of all. Integrity never stops. I hope that we are able to take the time to share our ideas, our values, and most importantly, our conversations, in order to continue to move forward in our quest for stronger bonds of public integrity.
Michael Macaulay is Professor of Public Administration at the School of Government Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. Michael’s research interests are ethics, integrity, and anti-corruption within a public management and policy context. He is Australasian and Pacific Rim regional editor for Public Management Review and is a former (2013–2016) coexecutive editor of International Journal of Public Administration. He is the current Chair of New Zealand Police’s Expert Advisory Panel on emergent technologies.
We have seen a solid uptick in recruitment activity across the public sector at all levels, from the re-emergence of grad programmes to DCE appointments and short-term hourly rate contracts, but alongside that our career transition team are still occupied supporting organisations and their people through outplacement support or helping them to prepare for internal interviews as part of EOI processes.
Hybrid working continues to be the standard offering, though expectations for onsite presence have increased In Wellington, three to four days in the office is now typical, with leadership roles often requiring four to five. Auckland employers are also leaning towards a four-day onsite standard, a shift from previous flexibility.
While recruitment activity is on the rise, the market remains cautious, but we are heading in a positive direction! Our role now is to guide and support hiring managers, being ready to flex and respond to their requirements – if you’d like to discuss this further, to discuss this further or hear more about our service offering please visit h2r.co.nz or feel free to get in touch with Eugene, Shane or Katerina on 04 499 9471 – we’d love to connect!
THE INTEGRITY WORKPLACE. SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL
Ngā ara ki te kāinga: Understanding barriers and solutions to women’s homelessness in Aotearoa
New Zealand
Recent research reveals that 50,000 New Zealand women face severe housing deprivation. Tanita Bidois and Jo Cribb highlight critical policy gaps and advocate for gendered policy solutions to this invisible homelessness.
AUTHORS
Tanita Bidois
Jo Cribb
linked report). For older women, homelessness rates are rising rapidly. The limited data on single mothers also shows they experience a disproportionate impact of homelessness.
Unlike men experiencing homelessness, women are less likely, for safety reasons, to sleep rough. They will couch surf, sleep in cars, or sleep in A&E waiting rooms, or be forced to stay with intimate partners they may not wish to be with. As such, they are often invisible to services provided for people experiencing homelessness. Their invisibility has been exacerbated by the absence of gendered housing data and a paucity of research into women’s housing experiences.
That our poor record in women’s homelessness has been unnoticed was the impetus for the Coalition to End Women’s Homelessness
Established by five women leaders in the housing sector in 2023, the Coalition has three aims: to amplify the voices of women experiencing homelessness; to ensure that housing policy and provision are guided by a gendered lens; and to generate research evidence on effective solutions for women’s homelessness.
He Awa Whiria research
“Being able to have a home where everyone can come and feel comfortable and safe” seems something we would want for all members of our community. These were an interviewee’s words, taken from the Coalition to End Women’s Homelessness’s 2024 research report: Ngā ara ki te kāinga: Understanding barriers and solutions to women’s homelessness in Aotearoa. However, according to 2023 census data, for around 50,000 women experiencing severe housing deprivation, it’s just a dream.
Women make up around 52 per cent of New Zealand’s homeless population. This is a higher proportion than the countries we compare ourselves to. For example, in Canada women only account for 27 per cent of those experiencing homelessness.
Wāhine Māori are over-represented in homeless statistics, with over one-third of homeless women in New Zealand identifying as Māori (see page 8 and data page 18 of the
In late 2024, the Coalition released Ngā Ara ki te Kāinga: Understanding Barriers and Solutions to Women’s Homelessness; a study providing gendered insights and solutions for policymakers into women’s homelessness. The research incorporated both qualitative and quantitative data, using the He Awa Whiria (braided river) research approach, which weaves both data sources together, much like a braided river.
The findings revealed a stark disconnect between the realities of women’s homelessness and the frameworks that inform policy and service delivery. The report identified genderspecific drivers and solutions to women’s homelessness and called for an urgent gendered policy approach.
The study identified interconnected factors driving women’s homelessness, with trauma, mental illness, domestic and sexual violence, and motherhood as central themes. The fear of having children removed by Oranga Tamariki often forces women to make difficult decisions about where they live.
“Being able to have a home where everyone can come and feel comfortable and safe” seems something we would want for all members of our community.
The study highlighted that homeless women endure unique gendered challenges, including personal hygiene, pregnancy, domestic and sexual violence, and childcare. Trauma, including childhood abuse and the removal of children, is both a cause and a consequence of homelessness, contributing to ongoing mental illness and addiction.
IMAGE
WIRESTOCK ON FREEPIK
The study found that the over-representation of wāhine Māori in women’s homelessness is rooted in the ongoing impacts of colonisation, experiencing systemic discrimination across ethnicity and gender. Additionally, the report found that single mothers and older women face intersecting barriers compounded by discrimination in the housing market, insufficient income support, and a lack of suitable, affordable housing. Long-standing gender norms, pay inequities, and worsening health conditions mean more older women are facing financial hardship and homelessness after divorce or becoming widowed.
Analysis of Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) data for the cohort of women experiencing homelessness further found that while women experiencing homelessness have few criminal convictions, they experience high levels of victimisation. This cohort was also found to have unmet mental health needs and accessed fewer mental health services compared with all women. As an example, over the last three years, 18 per cent of women experiencing homelessness accessed pharmaceutical prescriptions for mental health compared with 27 per cent of all women.
The research also found that government policy, such as emergency housing, often perpetuates harms and risks associated with women’s homelessness, placing women and children in unsafe living environments. The absence of gender-disaggregated data collection and the invisible nature of women’s homelessness (driven by gendered safety risks associated with sleeping rough) means the true scale and nature of women’s homelessness remains obscured.
Despite gaps in policies and data collection, several housing and social service providers, such as the Wellington Homeless Women’s Trust and Auckland City Mission, are offering homeless women support and solutions that work. Effective providers address the complex and intersecting needs of homeless women, including mental health, addiction, domestic violence, and childcare needs alongside housing supports. Providers also recognise a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective, and they work closely with women to ensure solutions are tailored and culturally appropriate.
Policy implications
The research demonstrated the gendered experience of homelessness. Women shared experiences of homelessness through the lens of their personal safety, pregnancy, and parenting.
To ensure that policies aimed at reducing the impact of homelessness work for the entire homeless population, the needs of at least 50 per cent of that population must be included in the analysis. To achieve this, there will need to be an increased focus on genderdisaggregated data and a greater investment in research, monitoring, and evaluation through a gendered lens.
Ring-fencing specific initiatives focusing on the needs of homeless women will also be needed to ensure systems and processes do not continue to render them invisible and default to the needs of men. The unique challenges faced by wāhine Māori, Pacific women, older women, single mothers, and other marginalised groups need to be factored into housing policy development. Ngā Ara ki te Kāinga went as far as to recommend a national strategy to reduce women’s homelessness.
The research also demonstrated the complex issues women experiencing homelessness face, that is, intimate partner violence, mental health challenges and issues accessing mental health services, addiction, and the challenges of single parenting without secure housing. To continue to view their homelessness in isolation from other social services will mean continued failure to address their complex needs and failure to achieve outcomes across any of these policy domains.
The principles of the social investment approach, with its focus on outcomes for people and tailored services, are relevant here. Stronger partnerships between agencies, community providers, Māori, and iwi should be established to deliver coordinated, holistic support for homeless women.
However, as the research showed, the system has a long way to go to provide the wraparound support those interviewed needed, let alone the much-needed focus on preventing women and their children from becoming homeless.
Revisiting the quote from one of the women interviewed for the research that opened this article, the outcome needed is clear: safe, comfortable, stable homes. To achieve this, those working within agencies need to continually question whether what they are designing and delivering will work for both men and women, and what can be achieved within their spheres of influence to focus on outcomes for people, not outcomes for silos.
Tanita Bidois (Waikato, Ngāti Ranginui) is a Māori & Indigenous Studies lecturer at the University of Canterbury and works as a Māori evaluator. She was the lead qualitative researcher and author of Ngā Ara ki te Kāinga: Understanding Barriers and Solutions to Women’s Homelessness in Aotearoa She previously worked at Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu as Senior Policy Adviser, supporting the commissioning of Whānau Ora in the South Island for almost four years. Her postgraduate studies have focused on Māori gender and sexuality and the experiences of wāhine Māori.
Jo Cribb had two decades working on social and community policy issues, with roles including the Deputy Children’s Commissioner and Chief Executive of the Ministry for Women. She currently runs her own consultancy focused on governance, coaching, and gender issues. She is the Chair of the Wellington Homeless Women’s Trust and co-founder of the Coalition to End Women’s Homelessness. Her PhD in Public Policy focused on the government not-for-profit provider contracting relationship. Jo is a former President of IPANZ (now Hāpai Public).
IMAGE BY FREEPIK
Amending the Public Service Act: Goals, proposals, and prospects
Jonathan Boston, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy in the School of Government at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, reviews the proposed amendments to the 2020 Public Service Act and offers his own assessment of the proposals.
AUTHOR
Emeritus Professor
Jonathan Boston
In 2020 the Public Service Act replaced the State Sector Act 1988. Unfortunately, the Labour-led government at the time was unable to secure cross-party support for the new Act. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the new National-led government confirmed in late 2023 that the Public Sector Act would be amended. Following an exclusively in-house review of various policy issues and options, amending legislation was introduced in late July 2025.
Judging by the relevant cabinet papers, ministerial speeches, the Regulatory Impact Statement, and the Explanatory Note at the beginning of the amending legislation, the coalition government has five main concerns with the existing Act.
First, the role of the Public Service and the responsibilities of departmental chief executives lack sufficient clarity. Second, the Act fails to “drive improvements in public service performance” or “deliver value for money for all New Zealanders”. Third, it inadequately supports political neutrality. Fourth, it discourages meritbased appointments by giving undue weight to diversity, inclusion, and equity. Finally, it provides insufficient incentives for sound risk management, especially regarding national security.
To address these presumed problems, the amending legislation proposes the following changes:
1. Altering the purpose statement in Section 11 of the current Act (see Text Box below).
2. Removing one of the two statutory deputy Public Service Commissioners.
3. Requiring departmental chief executives (CEs), when their fixed-term appointment ends, to reapply for their positions through a contestable process.
4. Requiring CEs to secure the approval of the Public Service Commissioner before making appointments to certain key positions in their organisations.
5. Repealing various provisions in the current Act relating to diversity and inclusion. This includes the requirement in Section 44(c) for the Public Service Commissioner to “work with public service leaders to develop a highly capable workforce that reflects the diversity of the society it serves and to ensure fair and equitable employment”.
6. Adding a new provision to enable members of the Policy Advisory Group in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to be appointed on fixedterm contracts.
7. Repealing the current requirement for CEs to publish periodic long-term insights briefings. Instead, DPMC will be required to provide a long-term insights briefing every three years to the Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service, along with advice on how to enhance the Public Service’s capability to undertake longterm thinking in policy development.
8. Granting the Public Service Commissioner the power to restrict (including prohibiting) the use of specific products, services, or vendors by or within the Public Service where there is a national security or other national interest.
9. Making various changes to enhance CE and agency performance management, and streamlining certain parts of the current Act.
It is doubtful whether these amendments will achieve the government’s goals. For one thing, they mostly lack cross-party support. Hence, they are unlikely to survive a change of government.
COMPARING PURPOSE STATEMENTS
Under Section 11 of the current Act:
The public service supports constitutional and democratic government, enables both the current Government and successive governments to develop and implement their policies, delivers high-quality and efficient public services, supports the Government to pursue the long-term public interest, facilitates active citizenship, and acts in accordance with the law.
The proposed revised purpose statement is as follows: The Public Service:
(a) supports the Government to develop and implement its policies, to deliver high-quality and efficient public services, and to meet the needs of New Zealanders; and (b) supports constitutional and democratic government and acts with a spirit of service to the community and in accordance with the law.
For another, the Bill’s Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) is studiously ambivalent. To quote the RIS, it is “difficult to directly connect the proposals to concrete outcomes” (p. 5). In particular, there are “limits to how the impacts of the proposals can be assessed specifically or quantitatively, because the amendments are intended to have a clarifying and enabling effect on the operation of the Public Service. Where they are clarifying, the changes are largely indirect, meaning that the anticipated impact on the overall performance of the Public Service will be difficult to attribute and quantify. Where they are enabling, the impact will depend on implementation and/or whether a provision is exercised by the Public Service Commissioner … or the Government” (p. 5).
Equally, the RIS is uncertain whether the benefits of the changes will outweigh the costs.
To quote: “Given the indirect and unquantifiable nature of benefits and costs, it is difficult to determine whether the Minister’s preferred overall package of proposals is likely to bring greater benefits for the government and the Public Service than costs” (p. 4).
This is hardly a ringing endorsement. My own assessment is even less favourable.
First, there is nothing unclear about the current roles of the Public Service, as embodied in the Public Service Act. Those roles, which form a vital part of the country’s constitutional fabric, have remained much the same for generations. They are captured crisply and precisely in the existing purpose statement (see Text Box on p. 16).
The revised purpose statement deletes three roles: serving “successive governments”, supporting governments “to pursue the longterm public interest”, and facilitating “active
citizenship”. But such roles will not cease by simply excluding them from a purpose statement. Indeed, other provisions in the Act, which are being retained, will require such roles to be undertaken. Further, the duty to act with “a spirit of service to the community”, which is included in the revised purpose statement, is already specified in Section 13 of the current Act. Relocating such words changes little. Nor does adding an explicit requirement “to meet the needs of New Zealanders”. Who believes public servants currently focus primarily on meeting the needs of nonNew Zealanders? And whether the words “successive governments” are included in a purpose statement, officials must prepare for all manner of contingencies, not least changes of government.
Turning to other proposed amendments: few of these seem destined to enhance public sector efficiency or improve the quality of policy advice. Nor will they enhance the legitimacy of, or public trust and confidence in, our governmental institutions. Unfortunately, they risk the reverse.
De-emphasising diversity, inclusion, and equity is unlikely to encourage the identification, recruitment, and deployment of the best talent. Requiring departmental CEs to secure the Commissioner’s approval for various senior appointments will complicate accountabilities. And replacing virtually all long-term insights briefings, however imperfect these may be, with exhortations to enhance “long-term thinking” is unlikely to advance the stewardship role of the Public Service or improve anticipatory governance.
Equally troubling are the proposed changes to CE employment arrangements. The government claims these will “reinforce the
Contributions please
core principles of political neutrality”. Really? Surely not.
Instead, making every CE reapply for their job if they wish to remain in their current role will have a chilling effect. It will make CEs, as their initial term progresses, increasingly risk-averse and ever more beholden to their minister and the government of the day. Accordingly, it could discourage the provision of high-quality, free and frank advice and deter the best and the brightest from seeking senior public service roles. This can only weaken responsible democratic governance. Aside from this, it will significantly increase the Commission’s workload. How will this enhance efficiency?
If there are deep and abiding concerns about the leadership and performance of our public service, the appropriate response would be to conduct a proper review – rigorous, independent, and consultative – and then take the review’s recommendations seriously. But evidence-based policy-making is not in vogue. And it will certainly not be resurrected by the Public Service Amendment Bill. Citizens, whether ‘active’ or otherwise, can only lament.
Disclaimer statement: I was among those who drafted the purpose statement in the Public Service Act
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.
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
Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche’s vision for change
Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche spoke at a recent Hāpai Public webinar and outlined his assessment that the public service system is functional but needs significant modernisation to effectively serve New Zealanders. This is a summary of that webinar.
Sir Brian Roche’s central thesis is straightforward: the Public Service is not in crisis, but clear signs of distress are emerging.
“If we look at the future, we are not well positioned,” he warns, noting that New Zealand is not embracing the same change programmes being implemented by governments worldwide. His assessment comes from someone who brings both public and private sector experience.
“If we look at the future, we are not well positioned.”
The Commissioner identified several key challenges facing the sector. The current system, designed in the late 1980s and 1990s around individual accountability and departmental silos, has become “hardwired” in ways that now hinder rather than help effective service delivery. “We need to be more collaborative, and we need to take a perspective of how the citizens or the market look at us,” he says.
The consultation conundrum
One of Brian’s most pointed critiques focuses on the Public Service’s approach to consultation. He argues the sector has become trapped in “over consultation” that consigns decision-making “to the lowest quality performer”. His proposed solution involves redesigning the principles to distinguish between agencies that must be “absolutely at the table” and those that simply need to be “kept informed”.
This reflects a broader concern about bureaucratic processes that, while wellintentioned, have created barriers to timely action. Brian expresses particular frustration with the contradiction between government demands for faster, more agile responses and systems like extensive business case processes, which can slow things down. He is calling for a fundamental rebalancing of these mechanisms.
Technology as a game changer
Central to Brian’s vision for transformation is the strategic use of technology, particularly artificial intelligence. He positions this not as a threat but as “a much bigger opportunity than it is a challenge”. The Commissioner believes that AI adoption is critical to the Public Service’s future effectiveness, although he acknowledges concerns about information security and public trust that need to be addressed.
“We seem to have a natural fear that we can’t trust the government with information, that we can trust a lot of private sector organisations who use AI,” he observes, calling for greater transparency about how technology will be used to protect citizen interests.
Leadership in uncertain times
When asked about essential leadership attributes for modern public management, Brian emphasises three key qualities: curiosity, trustworthiness, and the ability to remain calm under pressure. His emphasis on curiosity reflects a deeper concern that too many public servants have “lost their curiosity about what’s possible, about what could be better”.
This connects to his broader worry about the sector’s willingness to embrace change. “The thing that most worries me is we won’t have the courage to reinvent the Public Service,” he says. “That we will have become too staid in the way we do things.”
“The thing that most worries me is we won’t have the courage to reinvent the Public Service. That we will have become too staid in the way we do things.”
Sir Brian Roche
Defending core values
Despite his reform agenda, Brian remains a strong defender of traditional public service principles. He firmly rejected suggestions that political neutrality or free and frank advice are under threat, though he acknowledges these values cannot be taken for granted. His approach to free and frank advice is pragmatic: it must be “framed” to ensure public servants remain relevant to decision-makers rather than becoming “just another voice”.
On Treaty relationships, the Commissioner is clear that “we stand where we’ve always stood. We’re a Treaty partner, and the legislation that we work in has not changed,” despite political discussions happening around these issues.
The path forward
Brian’s reform agenda focuses on practical changes that could yield significant improvements. These include greater devolution of decision-making to regions, reduced Wellington-centric control, and more dynamic collaboration between agencies. He points to the effectiveness seen during natural disasters when decision-making is distributed.
The Commissioner also calls for a fundamental shift in how the Public Service relates to external stakeholders. He argues for the importance of greater interaction with community groups, business, and iwi, to lead to better-informed decision-making while maintaining independence.
A call for courage
Brian’s message to public servants is ultimately about seizing opportunities for positive change. He encourages individuals to approach their managers with ideas that could deliver better outcomes, whether through improved value, responsiveness, or targeting.
His assessment after six months in his role is that his initial hypothesis about needed reforms has been confirmed. With global examples showing what’s possible, Brian believes New Zealand’s Public Service can and must evolve to meet future challenges while maintaining the values that underpin democratic governance.
For access to the full webinar, check out the website link here: https://hapaipublic.org.nz/ Article?Action=View&Article_id=150524
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.
Why does Aotearoa New Zealand need a Future Generations Act?
Sophie
Handford, Future Generations Lead at Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa, outlines how a Future Generations Act could embed intergenerational fairness into law, creating a democracy that serves both current and future citizens.
AUTHOR Sophie Handford
Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei. – For us and our children after us. – Ngāi Tahu whakataukī
Imagine a country where every government decision is shaped not just by today’s challenges but by our responsibility to future generations. A Future Generations Act could help make this real – placing the wellbeing of those yet to come, and the health of te taiao (the environment), at the heart of decisionmaking in Aotearoa.
That’s the vision behind Tomorrow Together – a campaign led by Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa (WEAll Aotearoa) to embed intergenerational fairness into law.
Why intergenerational fairness matters
Intergenerational fairness asks us to think beyond ourselves. It calls on us to extend our moral imagination to people not yet born and to leave behind a world where they can thrive. This thinking is deeply rooted in mātauranga Māori, through concepts like kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and whakapapa (genealogy), which place us in a continuum of responsibility to the past and future.
But our systems fall short. Policy is driven by short-term pressures, bound to three-year political cycles, and rather narrow economic indicators. Long-term challenges like climate change and inequality are often sidelined, even when we know their impacts will be felt most by future generations.
Polling by Talbot Mills in 2024 showed 76 per cent of people in Aotearoa agree that future generations should be a priority in policymaking. The public is ahead of the system; our laws now need to catch up.
Polling by Talbot Mills in 2024 showed 76 per cent of people in Aotearoa agree that future generations should be a priority in policymaking.
What can we learn from others?
Since 2015, Wales has had a Well-being of Future Generations Act, which requires public bodies to consider seven long-term wellbeing goals, shaped through deep citizen engagement across the country, and adopt
five ways of working, including collaboration, prevention, and long-termism. An independent commissioner holds them accountable and amplifies the voices of future generations.
Other countries are following suit. In 2025, an Australian MP introduced a Future Generations Bill, while Finland has had a cross-party Committee for the Future since 2000. These examples show what’s possible.
What could a Future Generations Act look like in Aotearoa?
A Future Generations Act could place a duty on all public bodies – central and local – to act in the interests of future generations. This could mean:
• considering long-term environmental, social, economic, and cultural impacts
• upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi across time
• integrating long-term thinking across legislation, budgets, and planning.
Core components might include:
A Future Generations Principle: Grounded in Te Tiriti, environmental sustainability, the precautionary principle, and intergenerational equity, this principle would guide public decision-making and provide a legal basis for accountability.
An Independent Commissioner: Appointed by Parliament, a commissioner would monitor compliance, conduct foresight work, support agencies, and engage widely with communities – especially young people.
Long-Term National Goals: Created through inclusive public processes (like The Wales We Want process) and reviewed every 20 years, these goals would form statutory objectives to guide planning and budgeting.
Transparency and Accountability: Policies would be assessed for their impact on future generations, with agencies required to report on progress.
The Act would need to sit alongside wider reforms. Public finance reform is vital – aligning budgets with intergenerational wellbeing and environmental limits. This could involve:
• including natural and social capital in fiscal reporting
• creating intergenerational balance sheets to track the wellbeing of future New Zealanders
• using multi-year, cross-agency budgeting to tackle structural issues like climate adaptation and housing.
But current government proposals may be moving in the opposite direction. Long-term thinking might be removed from the Public Finance Act. And the potential abolition of Long-term Insights Briefings – which support forward-looking policy – risks further shorttermism. This makes the case for a Future Generations Act even stronger.
We’re not starting from scratch There’s already great mahi happening. Indigenous-led mahi like Tokona Te Raki and Te Tauihu Intergenerational Strategy are showing what’s possible. Inside government, tools like the Living Standards Framework and the shift in the public sector discount rate show appetite for change. Civil society –through court cases, strikes, and movements – is calling for systems that work for future generations.
What we lack is coherence. A Future Generations Act could provide the structural backbone to tie these efforts together and endure beyond any one government.
Where the campaign is at WEAII Aotearoa has developed a public discussion document on what a Future Generations Act, and supporting change, could look like. We have a Charter for building a coalition of individuals, organisations, and communities. We’re engaging across sectors and working with MPs from across the political spectrum. Encouragingly, we’ve been working with young MPs from across the House, who have expressed interest in this work.
Find out more by visiting https://www.weall. org.nz/tomorrowtogether
In the face of climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and rising inequality, this is our next great challenge: to design a democracy that serves us now and our mokopuna.
What kind of country do we want to be?
Aotearoa has a proud legacy of bold reform –from votes for women to going nuclear-free. In the face of climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and rising inequality, this is our next great challenge: to design a democracy that serves us now and our mokopuna.
A Future Generations Act won’t fix everything. But it could mark a vital shift – from reactive politics to long-term care.
Sophie Handford is the Future Generations Lead at Wellbeing Economy Alliance
Aotearoa and a passionate advocate for intergenerational justice. She has served on the Kāpiti Coast District Council for six years, bringing a bold, community-driven approach to local leadership. Sophie first stepped into the public eye as the founder of School Strike 4 Climate NZ, which mobilised over 170,000 people nationwide for climate justice. Her work focuses on creating a future where people and planet thrive, using the tools of politics to build a fairer, more sustainable Aotearoa.
WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY AT WEAII TO DISCUSS WHAT A FUTURE GENERATIONS ACT COULD LOOK LIKE.
Social investment: Capturing the full value of the return
Social investment has returned to the policy agenda, with funders and providers facing growing pressure to show their decisions have measurable impact. Natalie James from MartinJenkins discusses how to ensure investment decisions are grounded in evidence that captures the full value of what’s achieved.
AUTHOR Natalie James
Social investment marks a shift in how we think about welfare. Rather than providing a broad safety net, social investment takes a preventative approach, targeting those most at risk and supporting them to participate fully in work and society. It reframes support not just as a cost, but as a long-term investment in human potential.
Between 2011 and 2017, social investment gained momentum as a fiscal strategy for addressing entrenched social issues, with an approach that was more data-driven and focused on outcomes. The creation of the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) in 2011 enabled a better understanding of what works for whom, while the roll-out of Treasury’s CBAx tool in 2015 helped to standardise and monetise outcomes across social sectors.
Social investment back on the policy table Last year the Government re-established a stand-alone Social Investment Agency, expanding its role as a system steward, and strengthening cross-agency data use and evidence-based decision-making. Together with the new Social Investment Fund, this establishes clear expectations for the social sector: set clear goals, understand what works through data, and direct resources where impact is measured to be greatest.
However, to be most effective, a social investment approach requires keeping the real-world needs of individuals, whānau, and
Social investment reframes support not just as a cost, but as a long-term investment in human potential.
communities at the heart of how we design services and measure impact. Investment decisions need to be grounded in evidence that reflects the full value of the outcomes achieved.
Building an evidence base centred on realworld contexts
At the heart of social investment is the ability to understand who needs support, what works for them, and how to tailor interventions accordingly. Linked administrative data like that available in the IDI helps us to understand patterns of need, but it often lacks the depth to explain why barriers persist, or to tell us how to intervene effectively in different contexts.
Research that’s sensitive to context and codesigned with individuals, whānau and families, providers, and frontline workers can uncover hidden assumptions and the real-world factors that shape success. Investing in this kind of learning helps us design services that are relevant, equitable, and impactful, and it can prevent the higher cost of poorly targeted interventions down the line.
Designing for outcomes: accountability and flexibility
Initiatives under the Social Investment Fund are expected to show a clear line of sight between evidence, outcomes, and mechanisms that support change, setting a strong precedent for outcomes-based contracting across government.
Investment decisions need to be grounded in evidence that reflects the full value of the outcomes achieved.
Well-defined theories of change and intervention logics are crucial here, so that we understand service assumptions and barriers, and set realistic expectations for progress.
Outcomes that are too broad can lead us to lose focus, while if they’re too narrow we risk overlooking critical enablers that support lasting change, like building trust with communities. Striking the right balance between accountability and flexibility is essential to keep services responsive and effective.
Measuring what matters and what works
The right mix of tools for measuring impact is essential to get a full picture of what’s working. Relying too much on quantitative evidence can oversimplify complex social issues and risk
undervaluing important, less tangible aspects of change.
Monetisation methods support accountability and comparisons, but assigning value to social outcomes is never neutral. It involves judgements about what matters, how to measure it, and how to value future benefits. This reinforces the value of integrated, mixedmethods evaluation that combines quantitative data with qualitative insights to reflect the full complexity of social change.
This richer, more grounded picture of ‘what works’ ultimately enables services to adapt, improve, and lead to meaningful change on the ground.
Relying too much on quantitative evidence can oversimplify complex social issues and risk undervaluing important, less tangible aspects of change.
Social investment as a complement to a wellbeing focus
Regardless of political stripes, the evolving social investment paradigm has potential to complement a broader wellbeing focus, by translating goals into targeted actions that are based on evidence and monitoring their impact over time.
For central government, the practicalities of scaling social investment require a shift in how interventions are funded and delivered. This includes moving beyond short-term funding cycles and embracing longer-term, outcomesbased approaches. It also calls for deeper collaboration across sectors, portfolios, and levels of government to address complex social challenges in an integrated way.
It also demands better metrics that reflect the complexity and breadth of wellbeing in real contexts, to allow funders and providers to balance the complexity of social issues with the imperative for demonstrable results.
Natalie James is a Senior Consultant at MartinJenkins. She is dedicated to helping clients get the most analytic value out of their data, including through the use of the IDI. Natalie is also a thoughtful qualitative researcher, approaching interviews and engagement with care and curiosity.
IMAGE BY FREEPIK
100 years of the Harkness Fellowships and why these fellowships matter to you
In 2025, the Harkness Fellowships celebrate 100 years of fostering international exchange, policy innovation, and leadership in public service. Aphra Green, Chair of the New Zealand Harkness Trust Board, outlines the history of the fellowships and their impact for New Zealand – and, most importantly, the fellowships’ opportunity for emerging leaders in the Public Service.
In the Public Service, we see complex challenges up close – and we often know there’s more than one way to address them. What if you could spend up to 12 months in the United States, diving deep into how they solve problems similar to ours, building an international network of peers, and returning home with game-changing ideas and the confidence to implement them?
That’s exactly what the Harkness Fellowships offer. For 100 years, this programme has been giving mid-career professionals an experience that Fellows consistently describe as “lifechanging” and “profound”.
It speaks to the impact of these fellowships that we now have not one but two distinct and complementary Harkness Fellowships available to New Zealanders – one focusing on healthcare policy and practice, and one focusing on building leaders in the Public Service
A legacy of international collaboration
Originally known as the Commonwealth Fund Fellowships, they were later renamed in honour of the Harkness family – philanthropist Edward Stephen Harkness, the philanthropist whose endowment made the programme possible, and his mother Anna Harkness, who founded the Commonwealth Fund in 1918. The fellowships were designed to promote international understanding and intellectual exchange between the United States and other nations, and at their heart was a simple but powerful premise: that by living and studying
abroad, emerging leaders would return home with new ideas, deeper insight, and a broader perspective on policy and public life.
When the Commonwealth Fund focused these fellowships on healthcare policy and practice, a small group of New Zealand Harkness alumni established our own fellowship offering, which was funded through an endowment by the New Zealand Government in 2014.
Impact for New Zealand
Across the decades, more than 120 New Zealanders have been selected as Harkness Fellows, and their leadership continues to shape many public sector institutions and thinking today. A scan of that list reveals that either fellowship selectors had a knack for identifying future achievers, or that the fellowship itself played a role in propelling the careers and impact of many – perhaps a little of both.
Fellows have had significant roles in the branches of governments, becoming judges, ministers, and senior public servants. Some Fellows have shaped how New Zealanders understand the world – through shaping the policy agenda, academia, and significant contributions to journalism. The focus of the Commonwealth Fund’s fellowships on healthcare policy and practice means there is now a sizeable group of Fellows who have transformed how New Zealand delivers health –particularly for those with the greatest needs.
Importantly, these exchanges have never been one-way. New Zealand Fellows have also shared their expertise with United States institutions, peers, and mentors, influencing policy thinking abroad and contributing to global debates on health care, governance, and public service reform both during and after their fellowship experience.
AUTHOR Aphra Green
PHILANTHROPIST EDWARD HARKNESS
Over the last year, as I have contemplated how to measure and communicate the impact of these fellowships for Aotearoa New Zealand, I have come to the realisation that some things are best left uncounted. It is not possible to meaningfully quantify the ideas seeded, friendships formed, networks built, synapses ignited, insights consolidated, and policies shaped.
Harkness Fellowships into the future –reflecting on the next 100 years
A review of that list of 120 Fellows also tells the story of how we have thought about leadership potential in New Zealand, and how progressive some of that thinking has been. Women and Māori leaders were early fellowship recipients, and that diversity has continued.
As we celebrate 100 years of the Harkness Fellowships, the question is not just how far we’ve come – but where we go next. As we face increasingly complex challenges – climate change, technological disruption, demographic shifts – the value of international learning and exchange of ideas supported by the Harkness Fellowships is clearer than ever. The fellowships offer public servants time to reflect, space to be curious, and a chance to bring the best of global thinking home.
It is not possible to meaningfully quantify the ideas seeded, friendships formed, networks built, synapses ignited, insights consolidated, and policies shaped.
The Commonwealth Fund is bringing together the entire Harkness community in-person in November 2025; and its 2027–28 Harkness Fellowship round will open in June 2026. Applications for the New Zealand Harkness Fellowship open in early 2026. More information is available here
If you’re interested, start by identifying what you’re most curious about in your current role. What keeps you up at night? What policy challenges does New Zealand face that the United States has tackled differently? That curiosity could be the foundation of your fellowship application.
UNITED STATES TO NEW ZEALAND
The Ian Axford Fellowships in Public Policy, administered by Fulbright New Zealand, also reinforce the links between New Zealand and the United States. These fellowships are sponsored by New Zealand government agencies and provide United States recipients with the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of public policy in New Zealand.
The fellowships offer public servants time to reflect, space to be curious, and a chance to bring the best of global thinking home.
Aphra Green is the Chair of the New Zealand Harkness Trust Board and was the 2015 New Zealand Harkness Fellow Her Fellowship enabled her to work within the United States Federal Department of Justice, looking at evidence-based approaches to criminal justice reforms. Her Fellowship led to extensive United States-New Zealand collaboration on justice issues, with a number of United States justice officials visiting New Zealand in the years following her Fellowship. She has held leadership roles in the Ministry of Justice and Oranga Tamariki and is currently the Deputy Chief Executive System Performance and Investment Advice at the Social Investment Agency.
SOME OF THE CURRENT AND FORMER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAVE BEEN RECIPIENTS OF THE HARKNESS FELLOWSHIP:
Dr Dale Bramley: Chief Executive, Health NZ
Peter Te Matakahere Douglas: Director, Child Protection Investigation Unit, Oranga Tamariki
Sir Richard Faull: Professor of anatomy and Director of the Centre for Brain Research at the University of Auckland
Aimee Hadrup: Manager, Tamariki Wellbeing at The Southern Initiative, Auckland Council. See Aimee’s Hāpai Public article here
Peter Hughes: Public Service Commissioner (2016–2024)
Andrew Kibblewhite: Secretary for Justice, previously Chief Executive of DPMC
Dr Andrew Old: Deputy Director-General of Public Health, Ministry of Health
Diane Owenga: Programme Director, The Policy Project, DPMC (2017-2023)
Dame Karen Poutasi: Director-General of Health (1995–2006), Chief Executive NZQA (2006–2020)
Kara Puketapu: Secretary of Māori Affairs (1977-1983)
Ross Tanner: previous Deputy State Services Commissioner and former President of IPANZ (now Hāpai Public)
Sir Collin Tukuitonga KNZM: Associate Dean Pacific, University of Auckland
2025 RECIPIENTS: JACOB (HĀKOPA) ASHDOWN (ABOVE LEFT) WAS THE 2025 RECIPIENT OF THE NEW ZEALAND HARKNESS FELLOWSHIP, AND REZA JARRAL (ABOVE RIGHT) WAS THE 2025 RECIPIENT OF THE 2025–26 HARKNESS FELLOWSHIP IN HEALTHCARE POLICY AND PRACTICE.
Built to deliver: Global trends to accelerate government delivery
Kate Sutton and Adithi Pandit from Deloitte New Zealand outline that New Zealand’s public sector must accelerate its pace of change to transform public service delivery.
AUTHORS
Kate Sutton
Adithi Pandit
Governments around the world are grappling with a common challenge: not just executing large-scale initiatives or investing in infrastructure but fundamentally transforming how public services are delivered. The latest Deloitte Government Trends report calls for governments to become more agile, responsive, and equipped to meet the complex demands of the modern world.
Since 2019, the Deloitte Centre for Government Insights has published annual reports looking at global public sector trends with the aim of helping governments solve complex problems. This year’s report builds on previous themes, such as cost-efficiency and value creation, with a sharper focus on delivery. Key trends include:
• lower-cost, higher-value government
• the promise of AI in public service
• reducing bureaucratic red tape
• modernising public service delivery.
Why do these trends matter?
These challenges are not unique to any one country. While some governments are deploying new tools and methods to meet them head-on, others are still struggling to gain traction.
For New Zealand’s Public Service, many of these trends will feel familiar. They align closely with current government priorities and the Public Service Commissioner’s direction. But in a sector marked by complexity and competing demands, the question remains: How can we accelerate delivery and change?
Tools and approaches that enable delivery
One of the most compelling aspects of the report is not just the trends themselves but the practical tools and approaches governments are using to deliver results:
• Singapore has introduced AI-based solutions to automate routine tasks and enhance data analysis, significantly reducing administrative workload.
• The United Arab Emirates is streamlining processes through its Zero Government Bureaucracy programme, consolidating procedures and leveraging digital tools to improve efficiency.
• Australia is embracing public-private partnerships to deliver infrastructure, positioning itself as a leader in collaborative delivery models.
In developing AI capabilities, many governments are taking an employee-led approach in building workforce fluency, implementing agentic AI (AI that can make decisions and perform tasks without human intervention), and establishing governance frameworks to balance innovation with public sector responsibilities.
Focus on wicked problems, not just ‘solved and safe’ solutions
Governments have successfully scaled certain delivery mechanisms, such as shared services, citizen portals, and consolidated procurement platforms. Deloitte refers to these as ‘solved and safe’, which translates to ‘technically demanding but well understood’.
However, emerging opportunities like agentic AI, advanced automation, and AIaugmented public sector roles require more experimentation and learning. These areas demand agile approaches and a willingness to test, adapt, and iterate.
Strategies that drive deliverability
Global experience highlights several strategies that enable governments to deliver at pace:
• Leadership mandate: Technology is no longer the primary barrier. What’s needed is strong leadership, clear accountability, and centralised decisionmaking. Successful models have political sponsorship and continuity of funding to overcome inevitable hurdles.
• Incentivising cultural change: Risk aversion can stifle innovation. Jurisdictions that succeed adopt best practices from elsewhere and tailor them to local needs. Effective public-private partnerships are built on well-designed incentives and commercial constructs –
Technology is no longer the primary barrier. What’s needed is strong leadership, clear accountability, and centralised decision-making.
not outsourcing but collaboration.
• Avoiding restructuring fatigue: Constant restructuring can distract from service delivery. Successful governments focus on digital transformation at scale and staff mobility at the local level. Emerging best practices include missionbased models, devolved services, and separating funding from delivery.
• Prioritising execution at scale: Pilots and trials are valuable but must be designed with scalability in mind. New Zealand’s size can make scaling difficult, so subscription-based and scalable platforms are key. Connecting with international ‘learn and scale’ centres, such as those in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the Nordics, can help build capability.
What does this mean for New Zealand?
International examples can sometimes feel distant or difficult to replicate, especially given New Zealand’s resource constraints. But the imperative is clear: citizens expect more, and government direction supports change.
Cross-sector challenges, such as housing affordability and community wellbeing, require new ways of working. The report highlights tools for solving these complex problems, some of which are already being tested here:
• The Social Investment Agency is pioneering outcome-based markets and cross-sector data sharing.
• The City and Regional Deal process is a place-based approach that fosters publicprivate collaboration.
Crucially, governments must capture success, learn from it, and adapt delivery models in real time. Agile, iterative improvement is key to scaling new methods across the public sector.
Each delivery tool contains a method set that can be adapted across central and local government in New Zealand. If the Deloitte Government Trends report tells us anything, it’s that the countries we proudly compare ourselves to are moving with pace and purpose. For the benefit of our citizens, we must do the same.
Kate Sutton is a Director at Deloitte New Zealand, specialising in developing transformational solutions for public and private sector clients, and supporting organisations through innovation and digital transformation. Kate is dedicated to shaping more prosperous, sustainable, and worldclass cities. She brings deep experience leading in complex environments, establishing businesses in challenging markets, and advising governments on strategic initiatives.
Adithi Pandit leads Deloitte New Zealand’s Government & Public Sector, Strategy & Business Design practices as well as social innovation and impact services in New Zealand. She is also a Deloitte Asia-Pacific Public Sector executive. Adithi drives transformation through human-centred design, focusing on operating model change and large-scale organisational reform. Her expertise lies in tackling complex systemic issues, championing collaboration and innovation to deliver meaningful impact across social service settings.
The countries we proudly compare ourselves to are moving with pace and purpose. For the benefit of our citizens, we must do the same.
Book review
Journalist-turned-governance student Farheen Hussain reviews Stepping Up: COVID-19 Checkpoints and Rangatiratanga by Luke Fitzmaurice and Maria Bargh.
AUTHOR Farheen Hussain
When I picked Stepping Up: COVID-19 Checkpoints and Rangatiratanga for an assignment in my Government and Governing course, I remembered something my lecturer, Dr Barbara Allen, had said: “Even if you don’t write about it, this is a book worth having on your shelf.” She was right. This isn’t just a good read. It’s a necessary one.
COVID-19 was a life-altering event, and not just in Aotearoa New Zealand. Around the world, it exposed the fragility of systems, but it also surfaced stories of extraordinary care. This book is one of those stories. It reminds us that in moments of fear and uncertainty, some communities choose to come together.
The book examines four Māori-led checkpoints established during the 2020 lockdown in Wharekahika, Ngataki, Maketu, and Urenui. Each reflected the needs and character of its own community, but all were grounded in tikanga Māori and guided by local leadership. Authors Luke Fitzmaurice (Te Aupouri) and Maria Bargh (Te Arawa, Ngāti Awa) draw on interviews and historical context to show these checkpoints as expressions of rangatiratanga while acknowledging the mixed reactions they received and the legal and political questions they raised.
The book faces these complexities head-on. For some, the checkpoints were essential public health measures rooted in community care. For others, they raised questions about state authority over public spaces. Rather than take a side, the authors present the perspectives, motivations, and realities, inviting readers to reflect on their place in wider debates about governance, authority, and partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The writing is clear and accessible. The checkpoints are not romanticised; they are shown as governance in action, shaped by local decision-making and a deep sense of responsibility. The book also honours the human cost: volunteers who stood for hours, away from whānau, with no salary or fanfare, only commitment and aroha.
As a student learning about policy and public service, this book made something click for me. The checkpoints modelled a new way of working, offered lessons on accountability, ethics, and partnership. Not the kind you tick off in a framework, but the kind that’s felt through whanaungatanga and trust.
Stepping Up is not about endorsing a single response. It is a thoughtful case study of how decisions are made in a crisis, how communities mobilise, and how different forms of authority can meet – and sometimes collide. It is a quiet call to reimagine what good public service can look like and who gets to lead it. It is one of those rare reads that stays with you. I finished it feeling more grounded, more hopeful, and more aware. That’s a feeling we could all use a little more of.
Farheen Hussain is a former journalist from India and currently a Master’s student in Global Business at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington. She has reported on education and public health during the COVID-19 pandemic and is passionate about reimagining governance through care, ethics, and kaupapa Māori values.
Did you know? The origins of some common terms
Working in the public sector, you will undoubtedly encounter parliamentary terminology. Here are five fascinating stories about the origin of some of these terms.
WAKA JUMPING
This uniquely New Zealand term combines Māori tradition with political reality. A waka represents collective effort – everyone must paddle together to reach their destination. ‘Jumping’ to another party mid-term is like abandoning your crew and leaping to another vessel, potentially leaving your original waka to flounder. The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018, known as the ‘waka-jumping law’, uses this metaphor deliberately. It allows parties to trigger by-elections when MPs switch allegiances. It reflects our mixedmember proportional system, where party votes matter as much (some argue more) as electoral candidates. The term is believed to have been in use since around 1999.
WHIP
The concept of a whip was inherited from British parliamentary politics. Political parties appoint party whips to ensure party discipline and attendance, among other things. It is thought that the term comes from a fox-hunting expression – ‘whipper in’ – referring to the hunting team member responsible for keeping the dogs from straying from the pack during a chase. In the context of the New Zealand Parliament, a whip is an MP whose main task is to ensure party discipline in the house. Whips’ duties include preparing lists of members in their party to speak in debates, making sure their members are in the House when needed, casting votes on behalf of their party during a party vote, and negotiating with other whips on House business. Today, some parties use an alternative title. For example, the Green Party uses the term ‘musterer’ and Te Pāti Māori refers to its whip as ‘mataura’.
SELECT COMMITTEE
Our select committee system comes directly from the British Parliament, where ‘select’ simply means ‘chosen’ or ‘picked’. There are two types of Select Committee. Subject Select Committees (currently there are 12), such as the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Justice Committee, and then Specialist Select Committees (currently there are eight), such as the Petitions Select Committee and the Privileges Committee. Membership (across the set of all Select Committees) is a balance of both Government and Opposition members, so that the proportion of each political party is fairly represented. Select Committees are often referred to as the ‘engine room’ of Parliament, as this is where the in-depth examination of Bills takes place.
THE EXECUTIVE
This term is often misunderstood. It is thought that the term ‘executive’ can be traced back to the ‘separation of powers’ ideas of Montesquieu (French judge and political philosopher) in the 17th century. To him, what we now call the executive was the part of government that was ‘the executor of public resolutions’. Hence where the term ‘executive’ arises. Our modern understanding of executive has a different description. It is the highest formal instrument of government. The executive comprises two elements: a political head (containing the Prime Minister, ministers and Cabinet), and an administrative body (the agencies of the public sector).
CAUCUS
Some trace the term ‘caucus’ to the Algonquian word cawaassough, meaning ‘adviser, talker or orator’, while others point to Boston’s 18th-century Caucus Club, where British colonies at the time used the word to describe clubs or private meetings where political matters were discussed. Another theory suggests ‘caucus’ comes from ‘caulkers’, referring to shipbuilders in the 1800s who applied caulk to ships. Hence, it could be implied that a ‘caucus’ was a meeting of individuals connected to the shipping industry. In New Zealand it has come to mean a collective term for all members of a political party sitting in Parliament. Typically it’s where political strategy is discussed and important decisions are made by the political party away from public and media scrutiny.
Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand
PO Box 5032, Wellington 6140, New Zealand office@hapaipublic.org.nz hapaipublic.org.nz