Public Sector Journal 48.4 - Summer 2025 by Della Urgenc

Public Sector

Rāngai Tūmatanui

The role of central agencies: Collaboration or control?

Future-proofing the public sector in the age of AI

Understanding our constitutional ecosystem

Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s views on democracy

NAVIGATE AI WITH CONFIDENCE AND INTEGRITY

Our Foundations of AI & Ethics course is ideal for leaders and decision-makers establishing ethical AI strategies, or teams who want to combine AI capability with responsible human-centric practices.

ENROL TODAY AT: SKILLSDG.LINK/AIETHICS

What will 2026 hold for NZ's job market?

The job market in NZ is steady but competitive as we head into the final quarter of the year. While some employers are taking a cautious approach to hiring, we’re still seeing consistent demand for skilled professionals across HR, Communications, Administration, Policy, Ministerials/OIAs and IT roles. We’ve seen encouraging activity in the mid-range and senior leadership space, suggesting signs of movement as confidence to hire builds.

Contract, temporary and fixed-term contracts remain popular.

Many organisations are opting for flexibility as workloads increase before the Christmas break. Employers are seeking candidates who can hit the ground running, bring initiative, and adapt quickly to new environments. We are working with a variety of clients on permanent roles at all levels. Interestingly there has been a shift in application numbers for roles – these are beginning to taper off compared to the high volumes that we typically received earlier this year. With Christmas and 2026 around the corner we are anticipating year-end projects will ramp up and a lift in permanent and contract requirements as we move into an election year.

Thank you for your support over 2025 and we wish you and your teams a happy Christmas and start to 2026!

E-Estonia – the risk of not learning the whole lesson

The Public Service Commissioner has recently returned from an overseas fact-finding mission to Estonia and Singapore. Why these two economies? Because they are seen as potential role models for our own public sector, particularly in their approach to digitising and organising government.

Learning from other nations is a time-honoured way of moving forward. By learning from others’ experiences we can avoid pitfalls and understand critical success factors. We can leapfrog ahead using the paths cut by those at the leading edge without bearing the costs that come with being first.

One lesson New Zealand has failed to learn, time after time, is that underpinning the success of these overseas initiatives are critical systems and a culture of long-term investment and commitment. Cherry-picking parts of these approaches and transplanting them to New Zealand without adapting similar supporting systems to our context is a costly strategy doomed to failure.

Estonia is rightly renowned for its innovations in digital government. All interactions with government can be undertaken online, hence the term ‘E-Estonia’. How did this come about?

When Estonia regained its independence in 1991 after 50 years of Soviet occupation, it had to start from scratch. There were no legacy systems – nothing. Estonians vowed that they would never again be in a position to have their state taken away from them. They used their lack of legacy systems as an opportunity.

Over the past 25 years they have built a digital state that Estonians can interact with from anywhere, based on a national ID. Secure data exchange platforms allow the transfer of data between Estonian residents, businesses, and public institutions, supporting a one-stop shop approach to accessing government services. Estonians still have the option to use paper, but most choose not to.

But what underpins this approach? Gaining the trust of Estonians. Estonia’s digital state is built on a robust social contract, founded on a shared vision of never again being occupied. Fundamental to this social contract is what the Estonians call ‘radical transparency’. This means that Estonian citizens have control over who is authorised to see data about them, complete transparency over how their data is being used by government agencies, and the ability to challenge why a particular agency is looking at their information. Privacy and security are central to citizen trust in the system, and there are severe penalties for breaching privacy. Ongoing investment in infrastructure and its maintenance is critical and is becoming increasingly costly.

Aotearoa is not Estonia. We don’t have the benefit of starting with a blank sheet. Our history, cultures, way of life, and attitudes to authority are all different. What is the same is the need to put the trust and confidence of the people of New Zealand at the centre and to invest for the long term. If we want an E-Aotearoa, we must build the social contract and the underlying systems and capabilities that support it. Cherry-picking will not get us there.

H Ā PAI PUBLIC PRESIDENT

Liz MacPherson

PUBLISHER

Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand

Email: office@hapaipublic.org.nz Website: hapaipublic.org.nz

ISSN 1176-9831 (Online)

The whole of the literary matter of Public Sector is copyright. Please contact the editor if you are interested in reproducing any Public Sector content.

EDITOR

Kathy Young editor@hapaipublic.org.nz

CONTRIBUTORS

Andy Cooper, Allana Coulon, Derek Gill, Paul Holland, Farheen Hussain, Dean Knight, Liz MacPherson, Emily McCulloch, Charlie Mitchell, Zaira Najam, Annika Naschitzki, Kathy Ombler, Geoff Plimmer, Deb Te Kawa

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.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

E-Estonia - the risk of not learning the whole lesson

LEAD STORY

The role of the central agencies: Collaboration or control?

Derek Gill and Deb Te Kawa ask whether we’re rebuilding integrated coordination of the Public Service or whether collaborative rhetoric masks a centralising reality.

REFLECTIONS

How to save democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand

Emily McCulloch summarises a recent Hāpai Public webinar, featuring Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer KC, former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, and leading New Zealand constitutional scholar, where he discussed the state of democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand.

ANALYSIS

Understanding our constitutional ecosystem

Professor Dean Knight, Co-Director of the New Zealand Centre for Public Law and Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Law Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, reflects on Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique constitutional arrangements: its distinctive features and dangerous foes.

INSIGHTS

Leaking in the public sector

Dr Charlie Mitchell, Associate Professor Geoff Plimmer, and Annika Naschitzki, from Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, share insights from senior public sector leaders on what matters when a workforce is torn between political convictions and professional neutrality.

KAIMAHI MAKING A DIFFERENCE

“Young people have a contribution to make”

Writer Kathy Ombler speaks with Damien Clark, recipient of this year’s Te Tohu mō te Kaiārahi Rangatahi o te Tau, Young Leader of the Year Spirit of Service Award.

AI IN THE

Becoming ambidextrous: How to balance innovation and BAU

Allana Coulon, Managing Partner at MartinJenkins, looks at how ambidextrous organisational theory can help government adapt to the age of AI.

Future-proofing the public sector: Building human-centred skills in a tech-driven world

As AI reshapes public services, the challenge isn’t choosing the right technology – it’s building human capabilities to use it responsibly. Andy Cooper from Skills Group explains more.

NEW PROFESSIONALS

The art of being a public servant

Dr Zaira Najam, former Co-Chair Hāpai Public New Professionals, provides an overview of a recent panel discussion on applying public service principles to everyday actions.

PODCAST REVIEW

Journalist-turned-governance student

Farheen Hussain reviews Radio New Zealand’s Context podcast, hosted by Guyon Espiner and Corin Dann.

Advancing climate security policies in Aotearoa New Zealand and the South Pacific

Paul Holland outlines his research and work as a 2025 Ian Axford Fellow in New Zealand, relating to climate change in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands.

DID YOU KNOW?

What’s in a name?

Learn more about why we use some terms over others.

The role of the central agencies: Collaboration or control?

Derek Gill, Adjunct Research Fellow, Te Herenga Waka Victoria

University of Wellington and Deb Te Kawa, Principal and Managing Director, DTK and Associates, ask if we’re rebuilding integrated coordination of the Public Service or if the talk of collaboration is just a cover for centralisation.

Over the past 10 months Hapai Public has hosted Aotearoa New Zealand’s central agency heads in a series of webinars. They have described their roles as a type of collaboration, providing networked governance, where they influence without authority, and work alongside the policy and delivery agencies rather than directing them.

But the Public Service Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House, pulls in the opposite direction, as do a succession of other developments.

Centralisation and collaboration are not the same thing in Aotearoa New Zealand: the former pulls authority back to ministers and central agencies, while the latter pushes authority out to the front line and to the delivery coalitions, using their context and protecting their discretion. The distinction matters because network governance and top-down control have profoundly different implications for policy advice, frontline delivery, and democratic legitimacy. The question we ask is whether Aotearoa New Zealand is choosing the former whilst describing the latter.

The approach of central agency chief executives

Five of Aotearoa New Zealand’s most senior public servants have been generous enough to describe their particular approaches to central agency work. Ben King from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) talked about being a “collaborative support crew”. Iain Rennie from the Treasury represented perhaps the most sobering assessment. His use of

pātata – staying close to known markers while carefully picking a path through “prolonged turbulence” – signals a shift from Treasury’s reform-driving role in the 1980s and 1990s to navigation rather than revolution. But his message went deeper. He delivered a stark warning: “The current Public Service model, in terms of how we fund, deliver, and sustain services, is financially unsustainable.” Without structural change, government will be forced into “precipitate action”: sudden corrections hitting the most vulnerable hardest. As he put it, “we are already beyond business as usual”. Gráinne Moss described the Ministry for Regulation as government’s plumber: fixing cross-cutting problems through partnership, working alongside agencies rather than doing things to them. Sir Brian Roche told public servants not to wait for reform: he invited them to just act, and to try something better. Andy Coster framed his role as “influence without authority”, trying to shape $70–80 billion in social spending through insight rather than control.

Collectively, this appears to represent a genuine evolution in thinking. Network governance, not hierarchy. Enablement, not command. It’s sophisticated, and it learns from the lessons of the past.

The paradox

Yet the underlying direction of travel appears to be different. The public management reforms of the 1980s replaced a highly centralised regime built on prescriptive rules and input controls with a decentralised regime with high management autonomy for each public agency in return for greater accountability.

Since that time, there has been a quiet revolution, with the gradual tendency to reinstate central controls and a retreat into rules. This includes the Treasury’s development of the Investment Management System; Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)’s procurement regime; the Public Service Commission (PSC) taking an active role in wage fixing; or the recent decision to have the Government Chief Digital Officer (GCDO) lead digital investment and procurement decision-making on behalf of most public service agencies.

In terms of legislative changes, the proposed amendments to the Public Service Act seem to be cementing the trend towards centralisation. Across the three Cabinet papers released in

Sir Brian Roche told public servants not to wait for reform: he invited them to just act, and to try something better.

AUTHORS

Derek Gill

Deb Te Kawa

2025, and the Bill currently before the House, the proposals centralise control, tighten ministerial oversight, and narrow the space for independent judgement. Diversity and equity clauses are stripped out. Ministerial influence over chief executive appointments and performance is strengthened. Security-based powers to restrict vendors are expanded with limited contestability. The Public Service’s role is sharpened towards “serving the government of the day”, whilst long-term thinking and constitutional functions are pushed to the margins.

The evidence suggests that collaborative rhetoric is masking centralising reality, with profound implications for democratic legitimacy.

Long-Term Insights Briefings get centralised under DPMC. Interdepartmental structures like executive boards and functional chief executives require end dates and reviews. This reins in complexity but potentially dismantles the very coordination mechanisms that the collaborative rhetoric from the various webinars celebrates.

The removal of statutory protections extends to how chief executives are appointed and assessed. Reappointments become contestable as the norm. Ministers get formal input into performance expectations and assessments. These tie merit more closely to institutional performance and ministerial priorities, which is arguably welcome grounding. But it also extends ministerial oversight into performance reviews in ways that narrow the space for independent judgement. It will be important to ensure that performance does not become a proxy for obedience, for if that happens, the system could stop surfacing risk, speaking inconvenient truths, or challenging short-termism.

The centralisation continues through structural mechanisms. The proposals reintroduce ‘key positions’ requiring dual sign-off from both departmental chief executives and the Public Service Commissioner, echoing the 2013 State Sector Amendment Act, which was removed in 2020 as being too centralising. Now it’s back.

What we’re curious about is whether they’re achieving tidiness through centralisation rather than through collaborative coordination. These are different things, with different implications

for how policy advice gets formed, how frontline services get delivered, and how democratic legitimacy gets maintained.

Learning from the past

These shifts didn’t happen in a vacuum. They represent the latest chapter in a 140-year story that shaped by a fundamental tension in Aotearoa New Zealand’s constitutional culture. Palmer (2007) identifies two competing impulses at the heart of New Zealand attitudes to public power: authoritarianism and egalitarianism.

The authoritarian impulse expects and demands governments to exercise power firmly, effectively and fairly, trusting strong centralised government to fix things. The egalitarian impulse insists that government, and those who operate it, must not see themselves as ‘superior’ to the governed: everyone is as good as each other, concentrated power is suspect, and decisions are best made locally. These competing cultural values drive a continuous cycle between centralisation and decentralisation, between control and enablement.

Over the past 50 years, the country has cycled between these poles, with a type of pragmatism moderating the swing back and forth. By the 1970s, the authoritarian impulse had reached its extreme. At the centre were control agencies in the most literal sense. Treasury controlled the budget and wrote the cheques, procurement was centralised, and the Commission set staffing numbers and negotiated terms and conditions. The Public Service Manual attempted to prescribe how officials should behave. In fact, there were rules for how to park

government vehicles on hills! Every decision, other than the most minor, required central approval. That extreme centralisation created exactly the problems you’d expect: slow decision-making, frustrated staff, agencies unable to respond to local needs, and a culture where following process mattered more than achieving outcomes.

The 1980s reforms swung hard in the opposite direction. The radical restructuring broke up the unified Public Service, creating separate agencies connected by contracts. No more pen permissions, but not much coordination either.

By the early 2000s, the achievements were evident, but problems were also clear. While individual agency performance improved, agencies weren’t working together effectively, and the central agencies had lost their capacity to coordinate the system effectively. A 2006 review of the central agencies, led by the current Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche, sought a middle way. The review found that “the central agencies do not have an agreed definition of high performance” and were “not presently contributing to a high level

of State sector performance as well as they might” (Central Agencies, 2006, p. 5). The review called for a shift from “command and control” to “promote and assure”, essentially what these five leaders now describe. Neither authoritarian control nor anarchic decentralisation, but pragmatic coordination through joint ownership.

Therefore, the question for the central agency chief executives is whether they are seeking a return to integrated central agency coordination or should we treat their insights as carefully crafted rhetoric that will leave the underlying coordination challenges unresolved?

Network governance or central control: What it means for democracy

The question matters because the two approaches to coordination have profoundly different implications for how government actually works. Network governance operates through influence, relationships, and legitimacy. Bevir and Rhodes (2001) described it as governance through networks rather than hierarchies, where coordination happens because institutions trust each other, share information, and work together voluntarily. This is what the five central agency leaders described in the webinars. It requires institutional infrastructure; for example, joint planning, shared ownership, and systematic coordination. It also requires something deeper: space for professional independence, capacity to surface inconvenient truths, permission to think long-term, and trust in frontline delivery.

Top-down central control operates through authority, oversight, and compliance. Coordination happens because the centre can direct, monitor, and sanction. This is what the proposals before the House seem to build. They tighten ministerial control, expand oversight mechanisms, centralise decisionmaking, and narrow the space for independent judgement. We think the public administration question is which approach creates resilience, and which creates brittleness?

Conclusion: The democratic legitimacy question

The evolution in thinking described by King, Rennie, Moss, Roche, and Coster represents a welcome development. But the evidence suggests that collaborative rhetoric is masking centralising reality, with profound implications for democratic legitimacy. The five leaders speak of collaboration, but the Bill and other developments centralise control. They speak of enablement, but the direction of travel is to narrow scope. They speak of working alongside agencies, but the pattern concentrates decision-making in ministers and central

… performance must not become a proxy for obedience …

agencies whilst stripping statutory protections for diversity, long-term thinking, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations.

What’s clear is that Aotearoa New Zealand cannot return to contractualism or commandand-control from the centre. The current leaders have articulated an alternative that learns from past failures. But whether they can build the institutional infrastructure to make it sustainable, and whether they can operate within a political authorising environment that seems to be becoming more hostile to collaboration, and whether they can do so whilst maintaining legitimacy, remain open questions.

Deb Te Kawa (Ngāti Porou) leads a niche consultancy specialising in governance, public management, and public policy. Based in Ōtautahi, Tahuna and Melbourne, her firm serves public, private, iwi, hapū, family businesses, and community organisations across Aotearoa and Australia. An accredited Board Secretary and Gateway Trainer and Reviewer, Deb is also a PhD candidate at the University of Canterbury, where her research examines democratic accountability and polycentric governance systems in Westminster contexts.

Derek Gill is currently a board member at Hāpai Public and several other NGOs, and a Research Associate at NZIER and the VUW School of Government. His previous career included working at the New Zealand Treasury, the OECD, as a deputy at what is now the Public Service Commission, and as a researcher at the School of Government. This article is prepared in his university capacity.

How to save democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand

On 29 September 2025, Hāpai Public hosted a webinar featuring Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer KC, former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, and leading New Zealand constitutional scholar, to discuss the state of democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Emily McCulloch summarises his reflections here.

AUTHOR Emily McCulloch

Drawing on decades of experience in public law and governance, Sir Geoffrey offered a comprehensive assessment of the challenges facing New Zealand’s democratic institutions and the Public Service, alongside recommendations for reform. This discussion offered a preview of the themes explored in his latest book, How to Save Democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand

Democratic resilience and institutional design

Sir Geoffrey began by situating New Zealand’s democratic system within a global context, noting that democracy is facing widespread deterioration globally, with a marked decline in the number of functioning democracies and a rise in autocratic regimes. He observed that this has led to institutional decay, weakened international norms, and increased vulnerability for smaller nations like New Zealand.

While acknowledging New Zealand’s historical democratic stability, he cautioned against complacency, as we are not immune to these pressures and have seen an erosion of trust in our institutions of government. He emphasised that we, as New Zealand citizens, have a duty to contribute to the health of the state by remaining alert to the gradual erosion of democratic institutions and the risks posed by complacency and populist tendencies.

Sir Geoffrey described New Zealand as an “executive paradise” with a “primitive” constitutional framework, citing the concentration of executive power and the limited checks and balances available to Parliament. The current legislative process, he argued, prioritises speed over scrutiny, with laws often passed within three-month cycles, undermining the quality of public policy and

limiting opportunities for public engagement.

He also addressed proposals to extend parliamentary terms to four years, noting that such a change must be accompanied by robust constitutional safeguards to ensure accountability and prevent executive overreach.

He recommended that, to address these issues, New Zealand should:

• introduce compulsory voting, following the Australian model, which treats electoral participation not only as a right but as a civic duty essential to democratic legitimacy;

• reform local democracy, including by addressing the structural imbalance between local and central government;

• increase the number of Members of Parliament and increase sitting hours to improve legislative scrutiny and reduce workload pressures;

• amend the Constitution Act 1986 to restrict the use of urgency in Parliament to specified grounds, subject to debate and a ruling by the Speaker; and

• introduce formal constitutional law in New Zealand to replace reliance on non-binding constitutional conventions, ensuring legal clarity, institutional stability, and enforceable guardrails for democratic governance.

New Zealand [is] an “executive paradise” with a “primitive” constitutional framework.

The role of the public sector

A central theme of the webinar was the evolving relationship between ministers and public servants. Sir Geoffrey expressed concern that ministers increasingly resist advice on politically sensitive topics, which he viewed as contrary to the principles of the Westminster system. He argued that public servants must be empowered to provide free and frank advice, even when it challenges ministerial preferences, and blamed the erosion of trust between ministers and public servants on current legislative speed. He stressed that good policy depends on good analysis, and that the

… in New Zealand, we don’t have any money, so we have to think, and let us think better and more rigorously. Democracy can’t thrive if people disengage from the political process.

Civics education and public engagement

Sir Geoffrey highlighted a widespread lack of public understanding about how government functions. He argued that citizens must understand their rights and obligations to participate meaningfully in a democracy. Without this foundational knowledge, public engagement remains limited and misinformed. To address this, he recommended making civics education a compulsory subject in schools.

Sir Geoffrey urged citizens to stay informed about what’s happening in Parliament, warning that democracy can’t thrive if people disengage from the political process. He also emphasised that public servants should play an active role in educating the media about how government works, to help improve public understanding of democratic processes.

He also discussed the potential of Citizens’ Assemblies as a mechanism for elevating public debate and informing policy. Drawing on examples from Ireland and Iceland, he described how these assemblies can produce non-partisan recommendations that reflect the public interest rather than pressure group agendas.

Technology and social cohesion

Sir Geoffrey raised concerns about the influence of social media, describing it as a significant threat to democracies. He highlighted how conspiracy theories, misinformation and polarised narratives undermine trust in institutions and weaken the foundations of democratic society. To counter this, he recommended stronger efforts to combat misinformation by government or independent organisations. He also reflected on artificial intelligence, acknowledging its

potential to improve efficiency while cautioning that it must be carefully regulated to safeguard individual rights and democratic norms.

Lessons for public servants

In closing, Sir Geoffrey offered reflections for those working in the Public Service. He encouraged public servants to be positive and thoughtful, quoting Lord Rutherford by saying that in New Zealand, we don’t have any money, so we have to think, and let us think better and more rigorously.

Emily McCulloch is a solicitor in the Government, Competition and Regulation team at Russell McVeagh, specialising in public, regulatory, and climate change law. She has been a member of the Hāpai Public New Professionals Leadership Team since early 2024.

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.

SIR GEOFFREY PALMER IN CONVERSATION WITH LIZ MACPHERSON, HĀPAI PUBLIC PRESIDENT.

Understanding our constitutional ecosystem

Professor Dean Knight, Co-Director of the New Zealand Centre for Public Law and Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Law

Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, reflects on Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique constitutional arrangements: its distinctive features and dangerous foes.

AUTHOR

Professor Dean Knight

This is an abridged and lightly edited version of a speech delivered at the Hāpai Public 2025 AGM which is available in full here

My invitation here is to explain our constitutional ecosystem: to explain the nature of our constitution, especially its distinctive features, and to identify some of the threats – dangerous foes – that might unsettle the delicate equilibrium within that ecosystem.

Constitutional ecosystem

To be clear, I prefer to think of our constitutional arrangements as an ecosystem. Normally our constitution is described as largely unwritten, inevitably incomplete, not supreme and, except for a handful of key provisions, not legally entrenched. But this comparative framing reinforces a deficit model – focusing on what we lack compared to other democracies – and obscures much of the virtue of our constitutional way of doing things.

It goes without saying that our constitutional ecosystem performs the fundamental functions of any constitution, as Sir Kenneth Keith explains them: first, the positive aspect of “describing and establishing major institutions of government and stating their principal powers” (constituting government) and, secondly, the negative aspect of “regulating the exercise of those powers in a broad way” (restricting or controlling government).

But the idea of an ecosystem acknowledges that our constitution lives, is dynamic and is shaped by those within it – both by those people that wield power and those who keep them honest. And it is an ecosystem that is distinctive to place and has its own indigenous story.

Constitutional collision

At the heart of our constitutional story lies a ‘constitutional collision’ – the creation of our nation state through the collision of two sets of laws, as Justice Joe Williams puts it, metaphorically carried by two important seafarers: Kupe’s law (tikanga Māori) and Cook’s law (English common law). These legal systems carry different values and concepts, creating the dynamic tension that characterises our constitutional arrangements. Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi serves as the mechanism through which these two systems of law are formally brought together. In other words, the Tiriti/Treaty partnership is the means by which the relationship between the

IMAGE BY FREEPIK

At the heart of our constitutional story lies a ‘constitutional collision’ – the creation of our nation state through the collision of two sets of laws […]: Kupe’s law (tikanga Māori) and Cook’s law (English common law).

Crown and iwi/hapū can be expressed on an ongoing basis and the interaction between the different legal orders can be mediated. It is from this collision and mediation that our system of state law emerged: te Tātai Ture, as we might perhaps call it.

The balance between these legal systems has evolved over time. We remember the dark periods of strong hostility from Cook’s law toward Kupe’s law. More recently we can see some light from a new dawn and steps towards reconciliation, such as the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ellis case, which signals greater receptiveness to tikanga in shaping common law rules.

Constitutional mimicry

Much of our governmental structure mimics British Westminster origins – what I term ‘constitutional mimicry’. From the Palace of Westminster came parliamentary government, where the executive (ministers) are drawn from the legislature (elected representatives). This shapes our accountability mechanisms through interlocking links and chains of responsibility. Our ministers are responsible to the House for what they do; and the members of the House are ultimately responsible to us as electors. That is our style of democratic government – representative and responsible government.

Constitutional masquerade

There is also constitutional masquerade that comes with this Westminster style of government: the difference between legal form and practical reality. Most vividly, we see this in the formal allocation of power to the Sovereign or Governor-General, while in practice, constitutional convention ensures this power is exercised according to the wishes of ministers. “The King reigns but the government rules”, as Sir Kenneth Keith puts it. So too the difference between Executive Council and Cabinet: the former is the legal institution charged with advising the Governor-General but the latter – a creature of convention and unknown to law – wields all the real decision-making power. That’s why our constitution can only be truly understood when viewed through the lens of legal realism.

Constitutional potpourri

In the absence of a mater-text constitutional document, our constitutional rules emerge from a ‘potpourri’ of sources. These include prerogative powers (remnants of when the monarch ruled personally), statutes (both New Zealand and inherited British ones), court decisions, te Tiriti/the Treaty, and constitutional conventions. Our Constitution Act 1986 is the principal, formal statement of constitutional rules but only provides a partial sketch of our arrangements. Other legislation with a constitutional feel includes the Electoral Act, Bill of Rights Act, Senior Courts Act, Official Information Act and many more. Court decisions or the set of rules developed by judges when deciding individual cases – our ‘common law’ – generate important constitutional norms and expectations, even though the courts can’t strike down legislation like the US Supreme Court. And constitutional conventions too – the sense that there is a right way to do things, especially evident from an established practice over time. We have so many conventions that we have them written down in a dictionary of sorts: our Cabinet Manual! And, as many of our rules are found in a series of statutes and other documents, we might call our constitution a ‘multi-textual’ constitution, in line with an emerging academic label.

Constitutional ordinariness

Our constitution embodies ‘ordinariness’ rather than sacredness. We don’t worship a rarified document containing engraved testaments. We see the constitutional everywhere – hence the idea of a potpourri. And we generally reject a hierarchy among our statutes. Parliament can make or unmake any law whatsoever through its ordinary processes, without impediment. The courts will recognise and enforce the law most recently passed by Parliament as the valid and operative law, even if it conflicts with

a constitutional rule in an earlier statute. This reflects parliamentary sovereignty – at least in its strongest form.

This principle has important exceptions, though. A handful of electoral laws and the parliamentary term are entrenched, specifying a special ‘manner and form’ by which any change must be made. Courts increasingly recognise that some statutes are more important – and inherently constitutional – such that they may receive priority in interpretation when conflicts arise. There is also an emerging debate about whether some constitutional changes, particularly those affecting te Tiriti/ the Treaty, might be beyond Parliament’s ordinary law-making capacity and only possible through the exercise of constituent power of the people.

Constitutional dialogue

Within our constitutional ecosystem, there is a chorus of voices – dialogue between and within the branches of government – reminding us that a constitution is a human habitation and a place for our community to have conversations about important matters. But the different branches speak with different voices and different tones: the executive branch speaks of policy and efficacy; the parliamentary branch speaks of priority and accountability; the judicial branch speaks of legality and fidelity. This chorus makes dialogical conversations within our ecosystem sometimes challenging.

Constitutional contestation

Some of our constitutional norms are big ideas – witness parliamentary sovereignty (or legislative supremacy), rule of law, separation of powers and even democracy itself – but are ideas that lack the hard-edged character of rules found in master-text constitutions. We kind of know their gist. But when we drill deeper, sometimes parts become more and more contestable, the ideas often lack definitive meaning, or there isn’t clarity about their outer limits. Thus, care is needed; they might not provide immutable solutions, especially when they come into conflict or sit in tension with each other.

Constitutional guardianship

Constitutional probity depends on key guardians or kaitiaki throughout our system. Beyond the courts’ role in enforcing the rule of law, we rely on the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Speaker, Clerk, and Public Service Commissioner. Add to those the now fashionably called ‘fourth branch’ (or, as I prefer, the ‘integrity branch’) including the Ombudsman, Auditor-General, and similar watchdogs. Importantly, public servants serve as guardians through free and frank advice and policy stewardship. This generates, we hope,

pause and reflection among our governors, slowing the juggernaut of political expediency through the friction of expert analysis from those with non-partisan competence.

Constitutional ebb and flow

Our constitutional ecosystem evolves typically through incremental, pragmatic changes across the full range of constitutional sources. Statutes change through ordinary processes, the Cabinet Manual and Standing Orders evolve through systemic review, and conventions morph to address new challenges or shake off outdated practices. Evolution, not revolution. And that’s probably a fitting way to complete our metaphor of the constitutional ecosystem – an evolving ecosystem.

Dangerous foes

Finally, to close, some of my worries: dangerous foes that risk deleteriously unsettling the constitutional ecosystem and disputing hardfought for, and important, balances.

Civic illiteracy is worrying. Careful stewardship and kaitiakitanga towards our constitution is needed, by both the governors and the governed, with an appreciation of our ecosystem, its ingredients, and their interaction. But, to do that, both groups need an understanding of power, probity, stewardship, and citizenship.

Rushed law-making represents a particularly serious threat, especially because our checks and balances need time to do their work. Legislative urgency and expedited processes are like bushfires, quickly destroying everything before meaningful scrutiny can occur. I am particularly worried about how we break ministers’ addiction to urgency – and I need to say by ministers of different political stripes. Add the worrying rigidity of coalition compacts and their prescriptive timeframes. ‘Government by Gantt chart’, as I call it – something that should be scorned because it prevents the sanitising effect of good governance and policy deliberation.

Mischievous hyperbole targeting our judges and integrity institutions – claiming activism and overreach – represents a worrying imported playbook. These inflated systemic claims don’t survive close scrutiny but are designed to unsettle relationships of mutual respect between branches and erode the legitimacy of crucial constitutional bulwarks.

More concerning is what we might call ‘rule against law’: open hostility to the rule of law itself. We see this overseas where political leaders engage in warfare against judges, claim their own divine right to govern as they see fit, and posture as if they intend to ignore

judicial rulings. We cannot allow this dangerous playbook to seep into our ecosystem.

I also worry about institutional hollowing – again inspired by a foreign playbook – where some of our institutional guardians are weakened by seeding of folk lacking the wisdom, courage, or commitment to the kaupapa to deliver the probity our ecosystem needs.

Disdain for expertise, both globally and locally, is also rising, with open warfare against knowledge institutions, such as universities and our community of scholars, and disregard for internal institutional competence within government. Because much of our ecosystem depends on dialogue and reason, disdain for expertise and counterviews weakens our ecosystem’s antidotes to political expediency.

There also appears to be a worrying change in institutional balance with the executive branch, where responsiveness is now more valued over free and frank advice. The current amendments to the Public Service Act subtly nod to a changing posture but one that I think follows a strong cultural turn before. While no magical prescription exists, reducing friction within the system, particularly sidelining neutral competence, seems profoundly undesirable to me.

Legislative urgency and expedited processes are like bushfires, quickly destroying everything before meaningful scrutiny can occur.

Professor Dean Knight specialises in government law, with interests across constitutional law, administrative law, judicial review, and local democracy. He holds an LLB(Hons) and a BCA from Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, an LLM from University of British Columbia, and a PhD from London School of Economics and Political Science. He joined VUW’s law faculty in 2005. Dean co-directs the New Zealand Centre for Public Law and received Universities New Zealand’s 2023 Critic and Conscience of Society Award for outstanding independent expert commentary.

Contributions please

Public Sector journal is always happy to receive contributions from readers. If you’re working on an interesting project in the public sector or have something relevant to say about a particular issue, think about sending us a short article on the subject.

Contact the editor Kathy Young at editor@hapaipublic.org.nz

Leaking in the public sector

Dr Charlie Mitchell, Associate Professor Geoff Plimmer, and Annika Naschitzki at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, share insights from senior public sector leaders on what matters when a workforce is torn between political convictions and professional neutrality.

AUTHORS

Dr Charlie Mitchell

Associate Professor Geoff Plimmer

Annika Naschitzki

Since the formation of the National-ACTNew Zealand First coalition Government in 2023, New Zealand’s Public Service has experienced a noticeable prevalence of unauthorised disclosures of confidential government information. These leaks have included a pre-Budget decision shared with Radio New Zealand, policy details on the Kāhui Ako education programme, internal feedback on health data team cuts, a report from the Interisland Ferry Advisory Group, and sensitive material related to the Treaty Principles Bill. This prevalence of leaks has implications for political neutrality and how public sector leaders respond to a shifting professional landscape. No doubt many leakers do so to serve their view of the public good, but there are also costs, and an ethical distinction exists between leaking and whistleblowing.

In response to the increasing number of leaks, Judith Collins, Minister for the Public Service and Sir Brian Roche, Public Service Commissioner, have condemned the practice, emphasising its corrosive impact and calling for it to stop.

Recent research from Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington’s Public Value Leadership Project has found that senior Public Service leaders are becoming more concerned about integrity failures linked to leaks, political advocacy within agencies, and poorly targeted policy advice that fails to acknowledge the political positions of the government of the day. These leaders expressed unease about the politicisation of some public servants, eroding trust, and the betrayal of political neutrality.

How is leaking different from whistleblowing?

Whistleblowing in the Public Service refers to

the disclosure of illegal or unethical behaviour to an authorised body under the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022. This protects identity while enabling reporting of serious wrongdoings. Public institutions should have clear and robust processes for the management and escalation of disclosures of wrongdoing, with, for all staff, limited scope for discretion.

Leaking, by contrast, typically involves the anonymous release of confidential internal information to third parties – often the media or public in other channels. The leaked information does not meet the legal threshold of criminal wrongdoing. Instead, the leaked information meets the personal disapproval threshold of the leaker, who seeks to expose perceived wrongdoings or influence policy in ways that suit their beliefs.

While some may argue that additional scrutiny of government actions via leaking is beneficial, the reality is more complex. A politically neutral Public Service is essential to the functioning of democracy. The Public Service Code of Conduct clearly states that public servants must be impartial, responsible, and trustworthy. They are expected to “carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs” and “treat information with care and use it only for proper purposes”. This neutrality is particularly important, as public servants must not only retain the trust of the government of the day but must also act in a way that does not compromise the ability of future governments to trust them.

When these principles are compromised, the ability of any government to rely on its Public Service is undermined. This can lead ministers to choose not to use the capabilities of the Public Service or to exclude subject matter experts whom they consider to be compromised, eg, at risk of leaking information. This can, in turn, hinder good policy development, restrict the number of voices to a small group of trusted allies, and lead to lower quality outcomes for New Zealanders overall. Leaking undermines the trust, discretion, and neutrality essential to the development of high-quality policy development and advice. It also lessens public faith in the neutrality of the Public Service if, for instance, what is leaked actually has support in the community.

Trust, discretion, and neutrality are not optional – they are essential to the development of high-quality policy development and advice.

What has changed, and what can be done about it?

The post-COVID world is shaped by pluralism, tribalism, identity politics, polarisation, and loss of trust. The internet and social media have amplified both access to ideas and the impulse to act on personal convictions. Senior leaders tell us they are increasingly encountering public servants who struggle to reconcile their professional, politically neutral roles with their personal political beliefs. This tension is not only influencing policy advice but, in some cases, leading to reluctance to follow government direction.

Ethical dissent can be important. However, this dissent should be expressed privately, through conversations with managers or in personal capacities, rather than through leaking information intended to embarrass or obstruct the government of the day.

Insights from senior leaders

In discussions with senior leaders, several key themes emerged:

• Leaking is a betrayal: Leaders were clear that leaking undermines the efforts of thousands of public servants who remain politically neutral, regardless of their personal views.

• Pluralism is valuable: Leaders acknowledged the importance of a politically engaged workforce. Diversity of thought contributes to better policy outcomes.

• Ongoing conversations matter: Many leaders regularly remind staff of their ethical obligations and encourage reflection. If individuals feel unable to meet these obligations, they are encouraged to consider roles outside the Public Service.

• Visibility of actions against leaks is essential: Some leaders advocate for greater activity and visibility around leak investigations. Publicising consequences deters those wanting to leak, and reassures those who uphold their conduct obligations. There is also some commentary that leaders have been insufficiently assertive in investigating and discouraging leaks early on in the current government’s term, allowing leaks to be too normalised.

Conclusion

A politically aware and engaged workforce is vital to a healthy democracy. A clear differentiation between whistleblowing on illicit actions and leaking of information in line with personal convictions is essential, as one protects and the other undermines Public Service integrity.

The challenge is not to suppress political thought, but to ensure it is expressed ethically and constructively. In doing so, we protect the values that underpin New Zealand’s Public Service and uphold the trust placed in it by the public and government alike.

Dr Charlie Mitchell is a Research Fellow at the School of Management, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, with a PhD in management. He has an interest in public value, collaboration, and strategy.

Geoff Plimmer is an Associate Professor at the School of Management, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, where he teaches and researches public sector capability, leadership, and change.

Annika Naschitzki is a Doctoral Candidate and Research Fellow at the School of Government, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, with an interest in organisational change, digitalisation, and public management.

IMAGE BY KUES1 ON FREEPIK

“Young people have a contribution to make”

Writer Kathy Ombler speaks with Damien Clark, recipient of this year’s Te Tohu mō te Kaiārahi Rangatahi o te Tau, Young Leader of the Year Spirit of Service Award, awarded by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission.

AUTHOR Kathy Ombler

Driving inclusive community development within the Ngāmotu New Plymouth community, and backing “youthful idealism” are what really matter for Young Leader of the Year, Damien Clark.

According to his award citation, Damien, Manager Community and Economic Development, New Plymouth District Council, unites diverse voices, uplifts vulnerable populations, and partners with mana whenua. His humility and purpose-driven service embody the spirit of public leadership.

For Damien, volunteering from a young age, seeking out relevant qualifications for integrity, and being unafraid to “stick his hand up”, is the simple, at times brave, path that has led him to achieving such accolades. He urges other young people to follow suit.

“This Young Leader Award was really about a strong, unmoveable belief that leadership shouldn’t be restricted by age,” Damien says. “As a young person you have a lot to offer and the world needs you. Sometimes you need to stick your hand up. I wanted other young leaders in the public sector to see that and be encouraged to embrace youthful idealism and bring fresh energy to the problems we face. A balance is always needed, but there’s also a contribution to be made.”

Damien says he has always felt drawn to community, particularly young people. When he was 16 he began volunteering, first as a community youth group mentor then as a youth group leader. As different opportunities arose he was careful to keep a balance, helping people while also investing in his own development.

“I’ve been fortunate in that I’ve always had good mentors. I’ve also always looked for opportunities to upskill. While experience is great, you want integrity behind you. I completed a Diploma in Youth and Community Development, which was marae-based and I loved that. For postgraduate study I completed a values-based leadership and management course related to not-for-profit organisations. Probably those two qualifications, achieved before I was 25 while working full time, helped give me a broader range of opportunities and a higher level of leadership roles.”

His next volunteer role was as a Northland regional coordinator, organising youth workers into schools. It was a significant step up for the still young Damien. “I was meeting school principals who were all much older than me! There was a struggle with imposter syndrome. When you’re 10 or 20 years younger than your colleagues around the table you think, what do I have to offer? You just have to back yourself. Back what you know, and have the belief in yourself.”

Moving from youth advocacy to strategic change, Damien backed himself, stepped into leadership roles, chaired boards, and eventually found his way into the public sector in Taranaki. He’s loving it and says that it’s the community that drives him.

In his current role he manages a team of six community development advisers who work with community groups to support and empower them. Building relationships with iwi, hapū, and community groups on the frontline is a favourite part of the job.

“At its core, community and economic development is about working with the community to develop and deliver solutions to the things they care about.” Damien is proud of the dozens of grassroots initiatives he’s been involved in starting, for example, reinvigorating a local partnership that invests in the development and upskilling of community leaders with a new strategic direction.

Supporting community response and capacity to cope with people sleeping on streets has been a recent project. “Rough sleeping at the current level is new in Taranaki. We are discussing what capabilities exist, where the groups are and how we can respond in the long term, because we need to respond in a meaningful way, not just shift the problem around. I feel really proud we have opened a night shelter and can provide rough sleeper support,” he says.

Asked what he would say to young people considering a public sector career, Damien

endorses the path he took. “Volunteer, get on boards, be a part of your local community, never stop learning. When you volunteer, choose a space that’s giving back to you as well, where you are building your capabilities, rubbing shoulders with people you can learn from. This way you stay connected to the community to keep yourself grounded while also taking opportunities to invest in yourself as a well-rounded person, a professional, and a leader. You need to start somewhere, and there are plenty of opportunities.”

Lead all the time, he adds. “Wherever you are, whatever your age, no matter what role you’re in or where you are in the organisation, our world needs you to lead.”

Governance in particular can be a really good place, he adds. “We are facing a generational governance shift for community groups and charitable trusts. Many trustees are retired and ageing, so it’s a real challenge how to maintain those boards and that generational change.”

Kathy Ombler is a Wellington-based author and freelance writer, with a strong interest in conservation, outdoor recreation and nature tourism, and also local and national governance.

Becoming ambidextrous: How to balance innovation and BAU

Allana

Coulon, Managing Partner at MartinJenkins, looks at how ambidextrous organisational theory can help government adapt to the age of AI.

AUTHOR

Less than 1 per cent of people are truly ambidextrous. That makes good evolutionary sense – having a dominant hand helps us perform complex tasks more efficiently, developing muscle memory through habitually using one hand and so reducing cognitive load.

But lately, I’ve noticed that our well-formed habits, especially around technology, are under pressure. The sheer number of apps, channels, and tools we use to get work done is growing fast, and our cognitive load is increasing. I feel it personally – for example, the disorienting effect of having so many ways to save and share documents.

What we’re experiencing as individuals is mirrored at the organisational and system level, with artificial intelligence (AI) advancing faster than our traditional public sector structures can absorb. AI is going to change how we make decisions, how we organise work, and how people experience government. But in directing those elemental changes, public sector leaders don’t have the luxury of operating in a lab. They’re working with shifting political contexts and facing high expectations to deliver, diminishing trust in government from citizens, and tighter budgets.

When you’re a busy leader, turning your mind to the tidal wave of AI-related change is hard. It can feel like an unnecessary distraction. But it’s anything but.

Ambidexterity matters for organisations too Ambidextrous organisational theory offers lessons for managing this turbulence.

The core idea is about balancing two competing needs. On one side is exploration – innovating, experimenting, and risk-taking to

maintain long-term relevance. The other side is exploitation – efficiently executing today’s core business.

Overemphasising exploitation risks longterm stagnation and irrelevance. Too much exploration risks wasting resources on endless pilots, without clear prioritising and scaling up of the best new ideas for BAU.

Research shows that organisations that master the exploration–exploitation balance outperform their peers in turbulent environments and adapt faster to shocks.

Building ambidexterity in government

Just as when someone has to work hard to train and use their non-dominant hand, there’s nothing natural or effortless about organisational ambidexterity – it takes conscious practice and effort. This is especially important in the public sector, where the dominant hand is bureaucracy – formal, hierarchical structures, clear divisions of labour, and tightly regulated procedures, in the service of predictability and efficiency. But there are practical ways for public sector agencies to ensure core services and new ventures can co-exist and thrive.

Organisational ambidexterity can develop in two main ways. One is to make it structural, by establishing separate exploratory units with their own processes, culture, and metrics, alongside teams that deliver core business. The dual structures could be at a group or organisational level.

The other approach is contextual ambidexterity – creating a work context and behavioural capability for moving between exploitation and exploration within the same business unit. As Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) state, it involves “building a set of processes or systems that enable and encourage individuals to make their own judgements about how to divide their time”.

Balancing exploration and exploitation in the AI era

There have been earth-shattering technological shifts before, but it’s hard to overstate the significance of AI. It’s not just the blistering pace of continuing development; it’s also that AI is so accessible and so ubiquitous, with ChatGPT, for example, available to anyone with a phone.

When you’re a busy leader, turning your mind to the tidal wave of AIrelated change is hard. It can feel like an unnecessary distraction. But it’s anything but.

Allana Coulon

Without a deliberate approach to balancing stability and innovation, the unleashing of emergent tools, like large language models into government bureaucracies, brings special risks.

There’s the danger of disorganised, patchwork innovation in the shadows of your organisation – ‘shadow innovation’ – with under-reporting of failures and little sharing of lessons. The flipside risk is no innovation at all, with exploration stifled through an exclusive focus on BAU.

Working up a practical playbook for balancing stability and innovation

We need a practical ambidextrous playbook for organisations in the AI era. Here are some initial thoughts.

There’s nothing natural or effortless about organisational ambidexterity – it takes conscious practice and effort.

However you provide space for experimentation in your organisation, whether through dual structures or through a less direct, more contextual approach, you’ll need to ensure you have clear criteria for triaging and sequencing initiatives. For example, you might prioritise pilots that have high public value, manageable risks, and short learning cycles.

There’s one certainty here: your organisation’s approach to developing ambidexterity needs to start at the top. This is perhaps the hardest job of all – holding the dual responsibility for both delivering today and designing for tomorrow. As well as managing trade-offs and making choices about structures and capabilities, leaders face the critical task of building the culture and behaviours that will allow the organisation to successfully innovate in the age of AI while continuing to deliver its core BAU.

This is perhaps the hardest job of all –holding the dual responsibility for both delivering today and designing for tomorrow.

You will also need to then have a clear pathway and criteria for successful pilots to become part of mainstream operations. And while the rules of engagement for exploration will always need to be clear and certain, at the same time, you will need to be flexible in allocating resources.

Allana Coulon is Managing Partner of leading New Zealand management consultancy company MartinJenkins. As well as her day job of running a successful company, Allana regularly advises on how to design organisations to lift performance and deliver impact. Leaders value Allana’s ability to grasp their unique contexts, challenge established thinking and provide pragmatic, actionable advice.

IMAGE BY FREEPIK

Future-proofing the public sector: Building human-centred skills in a tech-driven world

As AI reshapes public services, the challenge isn’t choosing the right technology – it’s building human capabilities to use it responsibly. Andy Cooper from Skills Group explains more.

AUTHOR

Andy Cooper

A government agency implements artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots that handle 70 per cent of routine enquiries, dramatically reducing wait times. Yet satisfaction scores plummet because staff cannot adequately explain AI-assisted decisions, leaving members of the public feeling unheard. This scenario, playing out across agencies, reveals a critical truth: the public sector’s AI challenge isn’t primarily technological. It’s fundamentally human.

The trust gap

Aotearoa New Zealand has achieved extraordinary AI adoption – with the AI Forum’s 2025 survey finding that 82 to 87 per cent of businesses now use AI tools – yet a KPMG global study ranks New Zealand third-lowest globally for AI trust at just 34 per cent. This paradox reveals the real challenge: deploying technology whilst lacking the human capabilities to use it responsibly.

For at least the next decade, AI should be viewed as augmented intelligence, supporting and accelerating human judgement, rather than replacing it. AI generates recommendations; skilled humans provide the validation, context, and ethical oversight that turn those recommendations into responsible decisions.

The pressure is urgent. According to Microsoft’s Work Trend Index, 84 per cent of New Zealand workers use AI at work, yet only 19 per cent use employer-provided tools – a pattern evident in the public sector as well. Workers are adopting consumer AI tools faster than organisations can deploy enterprise solutions, exposing agencies to data breaches, compliance violations, and inconsistent practices.

Simply deploying AI tools without building corresponding human capabilities amplifies

existing problems. Consider bias: AI systems trained on historical data can perpetuate discrimination against marginalised communities. Without staff equipped to recognise and address such bias, public agencies risk systematically failing the very people they serve.

According to Government Chief Digital Officer surveys, New Zealand public agencies scaled rapidly from 108 AI use cases (specific applications of AI, eg, a customer service chatbot) in 2024 to 272 across 70 New Zealand public agencies by mid-2025. The Government Chief Digital Officer has published Responsible AI Guidance for the Public Service, providing frameworks for safe and transparent use of GenAI. The challenge now is translating these frameworks into practical capability across thousands of public servants.

Building the right capabilities

What capabilities do public sector teams need?

Three areas emerge as essential.

First, ethical reasoning – the ability to navigate complex decisions about AI use whilst maintaining public trust. For frontline staff, this means recognising when an AI suggestion requires human review before acting on it and understanding the difference between efficiency and accuracy.

Second, clear communication with diverse stakeholders. The KPMG study found New Zealanders’ concerns are clear: 76 per cent are

IMAGE BY FREEPIK

concerned about negative outcomes from AI, and 81 per cent believe AI regulation is required – yet only 23 per cent think current safeguards are sufficient. Public servants must help people understand how technology supports rather than replaces human decision-making. This requires translating technical processes into plain language and being honest about both capabilities and limitations.

Third, critical assessment – the ability to evaluate AI outputs, identify potential bias, and ensure meaningful human oversight. As AI adoption accelerates, if we abdicate too much thinking to AI, we risk losing the very expertise needed to validate its outputs. Staff need practical skills to ask the right questions: Does this recommendation reflect the full picture? Does it align with our policy intent? Who might be disadvantaged by this decision? What am I not seeing? Would an experienced colleague spot problems here?

From training to transformation

Building these capabilities requires ongoing learning that connects AI tools to Public Service values.

This means moving beyond generic AI awareness sessions towards contextualised development. Most public servants don’t need to understand how neural networks function at a technical level – they need to know how to apply AI tools within the ethical frameworks that govern Public Service. They need to practise explaining AI-assisted decisions to

worried members of the public. They need to work through real scenarios where efficiency and equity appear to conflict.

For smaller agencies, collaborative approaches can help. The Government Chief Digital Officer already provides AI masterclasses for public sector leaders and educational courses for public servants, demonstrating that structured capability development pathways exist –the challenge is scaling them across the entire workforce.

Effective development combines technical understanding with ethical reasoning. Participants learn not just how AI works, but how to assess its outputs against Public Service principles. They develop communication skills to explain decisions in plain language. They practise identifying bias in recommendations. These capabilities remain relevant even as specific AI tools evolve.

Teams also need permission to explore AI applications within governance frameworks, starting with small pilots before scaling successes.

What success looks like

Success in public sector AI adoption shouldn’t be measured solely by efficiency gains. Equally important are indicators of trust, equity outcomes, and staff confidence. Are people more confident in government services? Do staff feel equipped to make ethical decisions about AI use? Are vulnerable communities better served, not just processed faster?

Moving forward together

The question isn’t whether the public sector should adopt AI – public expectations and technological inevitability have already made that decision. The question is whether we’ll build the human capabilities necessary to do so responsibly.

This isn’t about slowing down AI adoption. It’s about adopting it more thoughtfully, with ethical reasoning, clear communication, and critical assessment that have always defined good public service.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s public sector has built its reputation on integrity, equity, and service to all people. With deliberate investment in human-centred capabilities, we can maintain these values whilst embracing the efficiency and innovation that AI enables. Technology will continue to advance. The question is whether our people will be ready to guide it wisely.

Andy Cooper is Head of Strategic Development at Skills Group, where he leads both organisational strategy and AI adoption initiatives. With over 20 years of experience, Andy develops growth strategies across regions and industries and guides the organisation’s responsible AI implementation. His work spans strategic planning, AI governance, and the development of training programmes, helping organisations build practical capabilities for using AI responsibly.

The art of being a public servant

Dr Zaira Najam, former Co-Chair Hāpai Public New Professionals, provides an overview of a recent panel discussion on applying public service principles to everyday actions.

“Be curious and work together rather than feel like you have to prove yourself on your own … We do a much better job if we do it collectively.” Panellist

Serving the public is more than a job, it’s a commitment to making a difference in people’s lives every day. Integrity, free and frank advice, political neutrality, and stewardship are all actionable principles that guide public servants in making decisions that benefit New Zealanders. The principles that underpin the work of public servants are:

• Free and frank advice: Providing ministers with candid, timely, and evidence-based guidance.

• Political neutrality: Acting impartially and without political bias in all advice and services.

• Merit-based appointments: Ensuring recruitment and promotion decisions are based on capability and performance.

• Open government: Fostering transparency and accountability in the workings of the public sector.

• Stewardship: Managing resources responsibly to ensure long-term public value.

In collaboration with The Policy Project team from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Hāpai Public New Professionals network hosted The Art of Being a Public Servant: Public Service Principles in Action in September 2025. Early-career professionals gathered to discuss what it means to serve the public, learn from experienced leaders, and connect across agencies.

The panel included: Janine Smith, Deputy Chief Executive (Policy), Department of the Prime

Minister and Cabinet; Kate Salmond, Chief Advisor (Strategy, Policy and Integrity), Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission; Hemi Smiler, General Manager (Mitigation Policy), Ministry for the Environment.

The discussion offered practical insights into applying the public service principles in everyday work and the qualities that help New Professionals thrive in the sector. The questions below summarise the learnings from the session.

How do you see public service principles in action in your work?

Panellists highlighted that principles such as integrity and stewardship are lived out in everyday decisions. One speaker shared, “It’s about being honest about what we can deliver and ensuring resources are used responsibly.”

Another noted, “Sometimes doing the right thing may seem difficult, but it is critical to maintaining integrity and public trust.” For New Professionals, observing these actions in experienced leaders provides a roadmap for our own practice.

How do you apply integrity and fairness when resources are limited?

The panel reflected on the tension between fairness and scarcity. One speaker noted, “When you explain your rationale clearly and consistently, people understand the tradeoffs.” The discussion emphasised that integrity involves consistently applying rules, being impartial, and making decisions based on evidence rather than convenience or pressure. For New Professionals, this reinforces the importance of being deliberate, rather than reactive, even under resource constraints.

What are some practical ways to build and maintain public trust?

Trust grows from reliability and openness.

A panellist noted, “Follow through on your commitments, and people will trust your word.”

Another added, “Communicating in plain language and explaining why decisions are made helps maintain credibility.” Panellists encouraged documenting advice carefully, seeking feedback, and always prioritising the public interest. Even small daily actions – being transparent, consistent, and accountable –contribute to long-term trust.

What qualities signal that New Professionals will thrive in the Public Service?

Curiosity, adaptability, and collaboration were

“Sometimes doing the right thing isn’t the easiest choice, but it maintains public trust.”

AUTHOR Dr Zaira Najam

highlighted as key indicators. One speaker said, “Look for people who ask questions, are open to learning, and can work across teams – those are the ones who make a difference.” Resilience and reflective practice also signal potential for growth. Observing and developing these qualities helps earlycareer professionals position themselves for meaningful contributions.

What helped you grow the most in your early career?

Mentorship, feedback, and hands-on experience were cited as pivotal. One panellist reflected, “The opportunities I had to lead projects, make mistakes, and learn from them shaped my career.” Another encouraged New Professionals to seek roles that stretch their skills and proactively ask for guidance. Growth comes from engagement, reflection, and actively tackling challenges.

The kōrero highlighted that the art of being a public servant is about both holding a responsibility and seizing the opportunity.

The public service principles can be used as practical guides for day-to-day decision-making that impact New Zealanders’ lives. Applying these principles requires intentionality, courage, and a commitment to learning. Whether offering free and frank advice, ensuring transparency, managing resources wisely, or acting with impartiality, small but consistent actions build credibility and public trust. The insights shared provide a roadmap for New Professionals: observe experienced leaders, seek mentorship, engage in reflective practice, and always prioritise the public interest by providing evidence-led advice. Upholding these principles is both a challenge and a privilege, showing that meaningful public service is achieved through thoughtful, principled action.

“Look for people who ask questions, are open to learning, and can work across teams – those are the ones who make a difference.”

This event was run in collaboration with The Policy Project (DPMC). Thank you to the team at The Policy Project for working with Hāpai Public to bring this panel discussion to fruition.

Dr Zaira Najam is a senior economist at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. She came to New Zealand from Pakistan to pursue her PhD in economics at the University of Waikato and was captivated by the beauty of Aotearoa. She made a heartfelt decision to stay in New Zealand and contribute to the public sector, striving to enhance the lives of people in New Zealand. With a fervour for community development and a strong advocacy for equal rights, her commitment extends beyond professional expertise, embodying a genuine passion for fostering inclusive growth and social justice.

Advancing climate security policies in Aotearoa New Zealand and the South Pacific

Paul Holland outlines his research and work as a 2025 Ian Axford Fellow in New Zealand, specifically his analysis of policies and best practices related to climate change in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands.

Climate change is a global challenge that will directly impact Aotearoa New Zealand and partner nations in the South Pacific. In 2018, the Pacific Islands Forum issued the Boe Declaration, which recognised climate change as the primary threat to the region’s future. The Forum, which includes New Zealand and 17 other member states, reaffirmed the primacy of this issue in 2022 in their 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. The New Zealand government recognises the challenges posed by climate change.

Beginning in February 2025, I spent five months as an Ian Axford Fellow researching both recent and ongoing actions by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) to address climate change impacts from a defence and security

perspective. My time working with NZDF’s Climate Change Response Programme allowed me to conduct an extensive literature review, visit and meet with local experts at five NZDF camps and bases, attend the New Zealand Planning Institute Annual Conference, and engage with experts across the defence and climate change fields in New Zealand and the United States.

Through these experiences, I developed the following thesis as the foundation for my research and subsequent policy report: Losing sight of the impacts of climate change could undermine the credibility of partner countries, such as New Zealand, and create space for new actors to expand their influence within the region.

As a land-use planner and adviser to senior leaders in the United States Department of Defense for the past two decades, I identify policy challenges and present recommendations on climate change and resilience. Through my Axford research and professional experience, I identified six policy focus areas:

- Data: Identifying cost-effective and consistent data and tools to inform current and future climate policies and decision-making.

- Investment: Evaluating existing processes to prioritise climate resilience for infrastructure projects at NZDF bases and camps.

- Infrastructure: Ensuring climate resilient infrastructure that serve as ‘power projection platforms’ from which NZDF operations are launched, and strategic objectives achieved.

- Engagement: Exploring opportunities to improve collaboration with local stakeholders on climate adaptation and

AUTHOR Paul Holland

resilience. This could include engagement with local government and iwi and hapū representatives.

- Policy and guidance: Highlighting opportunities within governance structures to improve climate resilience.

- Education and training: Advancing relevant and tailored approaches to climate-related education and training.

Based on my research and report findings, I developed a StrengthsWeaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis to provide a potential way ahead for NZDF to implement and prioritise the recommendations for each of the focus areas.

Strengths

Weaknesses

• Infrastructure: Robust analysis of climate impacts at NZDF bases and camps through Defence Estate Climate Assessment Plans.

• Engagement: Successful partnerships with local and district councils where NZDF bases and camps are located.

• Policy and guidance: Senior leader support for climate change through the Climate Change Response Programme and Board.

• Education and training: Existing engagement with Pacific Islands partners through the Pacific Leader Development Programme.

• Data: Limited or missing climate data to inform decisionmaking challenges with uniform data gathering.

• Investments: Making infrastructure investments without fully considering future climate change impacts.

• Engagement: Limited opportunities exist to educate new commanders on community engagement.

• Policy and guidance: Political inconsistency on climate change policy at the national level.

• Policy and guidance: Compliance with existing and future policies by NZDF personnel.

Opportunities

Threats

• Data: Improving internal and external relationships to strengthen climate data management.

• Investment: Applying the NZDF Sustainable Infrastructure Standards to achieve emissions reductions.

• Engagement: Increasing focus on climate change from a Māori perspective.

• Engagement: Strengthening community partnerships to improve collaboration with communities and iwi that host NZDF camps and bases.

• Education and training: Expanding climate-related curriculum for NZDF personnel.

• Overall: Emerging third-party actors in the Pacific Islands whose interests are counter to those of New Zealand and its allies.

• Investments: Current investments being threatened by future climate risks.

• Infrastructure: New or emerging actors developing/funding dual-use infrastructure in the Pacific Islands.

• Policy and guidance: Political leaders deprioritising climate change as a policy and security priority.

Given the importance of climate change to the Pacific Island countries and territories, New Zealand and the broader region would benefit from a stronger policy commitment to addressing climate change and promoting resilience. Such a commitment by NZDF and other ministries across the New Zealand government would strengthen regional stability, promote New Zealand’s values and interests, and address the Pacific Islands Forum’s greatest threat: climate change.

Future collaboration between partners, including the United States, on climate change and resilience could address strategic competition within the Pacific, reinforce the credibility of New Zealand and the United States among the Pacific Islands, and reduce opportunities for new strategic competitors to emerge in the region.

Paul Holland was a 2025 Ian Axford Fellow in Public Policy with the New Zealand Defence Force. He spent five months working for the Defence Force’s Climate Change Response Programme and published a detailed report on climate change and strategic risk within New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Paul has spent more than two decades advising senior policymakers within the United States federal government on climate, planning, and land-use policy. This article is adapted from Paul’s 2025 Axford Fellowship report and does not reflect the views of the Axford Fellowships Board or the New Zealand Defence Force. To read the full report go to: https://axfordfellowships.org.nz.

A VIEW OVERLOOKING THE AIRFIELD AT RNZAF BASE AUCKLAND, LOCATED IN THE SUBURB OF WHENUAPAI

Podcast review

Journalist-turned-governance student Farheen Hussain reviews Radio New Zealand’s Context podcast, hosted by Guyon Espiner and Corin Dann.

AUTHOR Farheen Hussain

Listening to Context feels like sitting in a café, coffee in hand, overhearing two smart friends having the kind of chat you wish you could join in on. Hosted by Guyon Espiner and Corin Dann, the RNZ series makes politics sound alive, human, and easy to follow. It’s not one of those loud, over-produced shows where everyone’s shouting into microphones about their feelings. If anything, Context is the anti-podcast – proof that real conversation, curiosity, and good research still matter.

Each episode runs for about 35 to 40 minutes and drops weekly. Since the first episode, The Brain Drain Backstory, on 21 August, the series has explored everything from Parliament’s rules to New Zealand’s history at the United Nations. The most recent one, The Great NZ Sell-Off (23 October), looks back at four decades of state-asset sales – from Telecom and Air New Zealand to BNZ and the power companies – and asks what the country really got in return.

The first episode hooked me straight away. The Brain Drain Backstory opens with funky, classic intro music and a bit of trans-Tasman teasing. Corin asks Guyon if he’s ever thought about heading “across the ditch”, and Guyon insists he never would. Beneath the banter, though, they get into why so many talented Kiwis leave for Australia – the higher pay, the bigger opportunities – and why so many still come home. Their chemistry makes it all feel easy, like listening to two mates turn data into stories.

The second episode, Spies, Allies, and the FBI, is where the fun really peaks. When Guyon starts explaining who Kash Patel is, Corin gives that look – half amusement, half ‘oh boy’. Then comes the best bit: they ask ChatGPT, live, about Patel being the head of the FBI. The bot replies, “You are mixing him up with someone else.” What follows is a laugh-out-loud debate between the hosts and AI until ChatGPT finally admits to “hallucinating”. A total red-face moment – for the machine, not the men. They handle it with laughter and wit, making even that moment of digital confusion feel meaningful.

Other episodes are just as engaging. In their take on Parliament’s rules, they unpack the little hypocrisies and hidden power games that shape everyday politics. In the one on New Zealand’s role at the United Nations, they revisit the country’s vote to recognise Gaza as a state and hint, gently, that big allies might have some quiet influence there. It’s clever how the threads connect – the FBI visit, foreign policy, global friendships – all part of the bigger picture.

If I had to nit-pick, I’d say the show sometimes assumes you already know a bit about New Zealand politics. But honestly, that doesn’t take away from how enjoyable it is. Context is smart without being showy, funny without being forced, and proudly Kiwi at heart. It’s the kind of podcast you can listen to while cooking, walking, or folding laundry and still feel like you’re part of the conversation. Like a good café chat, it’s warm, curious, and hard to leave.

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? What’s in a name?

Working in the public sector, you may have asked yourself some of these questions. We have the answers.

PUBLIC SECTOR VS PUBLIC SERVICE

Do I work for the public sector or the public service?

The answer is that if you work for a department, you may be in both.

The public sector includes both central government and local government organisations. In contrast, the public service refers to ‘core’ central government agencies.

In short, the public sector, with around 480,000 employees, is much bigger than the public service, with 62,654 people or 13 per cent of the public sector workforce. The wider public sector includes Crown entities (65 per cent), state-owned enterprises (SOE) (9 per cent), the legislative branch (less than 1 per cent), and local government (12 per cent).

The Public Service Commission website provides a detailed breakdown of the different types of public organisations.

MINISTRY VS DEPARTMENT

3 GOVERNMENT AGENCY VS DEPARTMENTAL AGENCY

What’s the difference between a government agency and a departmental agency?

A government agency is the generic term for any central government body – whether a department, crown entity or state-owned enterprise. By contrast, a departmental agency refers to a small group (currently there are five) of specialised departments within departments. A departmental agency is legally part of the host public service department but with its own chief executive and responsible minister. An example is the Charter School Agency, which is hosted by the Ministry of Education and is accountable to the Associate Minister of Education (partnership schools). A departmental agency generally undertakes specialised functions while sharing the services of the host department.

SECRETARY VS DIRECTOR-GENERAL VS COMMISSIONER

Why are some organisations called departments while others are ministries?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a threetier model design whereby a policy-focused agency was called a ministry and an operational agency was called a department or crown entity, with the third-tier being public providers (eg, NZSO, TVNZ) and private providers (eg, NZ Opera).

But the model was never pure – many departments and ministries carry out a mix of functions – and has broken down over time.

Some, such as the Crown Law Office and the Treasury, are named differently. Irrespective of whether it is called a department, ministry, office, or some other title, legally they are ‘departments’ under the Public Service Act or the Public Finance Act.

Find the complete list of public service departments in Schedule 2 of the Public Service Act 2020. 2

4

Why do we have a Secretary for the Environment but a Director-General of Conservation and a Commissioner of Inland Revenue?

All are chief executives heading their departments. The precise reasons for the choice of title are buried in the archives.

The term ‘secretary’ literally means ‘one who keeps a secret’. It appears to have initially described the monarch’s personal secretary, fulfilling the role of a clerk, scribe, and adviser. It evolved into a title for a person invested with authority and governance functions. The modern-day use of the term to mean an office assistant confuses the ‘public official’ meaning of the word.

The term ‘director-general’ appears to have originated in the 1870s and is commonly used internationally to refer to a senior executive or head of an organisation. In the three-tier model described above, the term secretary was used to denote a role that is primarily focused on policy, while a directorgeneral denoted a more operational role.

Then there are commissioners (eg, Police, Inland Revenue), a designation which arises from tradition rather than by design.

Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand

PO Box 5032, Wellington 6140, New Zealand office@hapaipublic.org.nz hapaipublic.org.nz