| |
|
INTRODUCTION TO THE REVIEW
 |
|
|
“The essential qualities of the coming era are of swiftness and lightness, exactitude and multiplicity, that may contrast sharply with the slow, heavy, standardising bluntness of so much government and administration of the last century.” Italo Calvino. |
|
|
|
- The review was established by the Prime Minister, the Minister of State Services and
the Minister of Finance in July 2001. A Ministerial Advisory Group (see appendix 1) was
appointed, which consisted of the heads of the three central agencies and three other
members, suggesting a desire for both internal experience and external challenge.
- The terms of reference (appendix 2) suggest that the government is looking for
improvements that can be implemented over a period of years, and also indicate the
Government’s perceptions of the problems of the system. The Advisory Group was to
report to Ministers within a three-month period. This timeframe helped to set the
expectations of this review as it precluded in-depth analysis of options and underlined the
expectations of Ministers that the recommendations were likely to be evolutionary. This
was not intended to be a complete redesign of the public management system, but it was
also required not to shrink from some radical adjustments if they were necessary.
The scope of the review
- The terms of reference make it clear that the Advisory Group was to look at the
public management system as a whole. They were also clearly intended to be a guide to
matters of concern rather than to constrain the Group to just those issues mentioned. We
have taken the view that the review must consider both departments and Crown entities,
given the role that Crown entities play in service delivery. We have not, however, looked
in depth at SOEs because issues relating to commercial organisations are quite distinct
from those relating to the rest of the sector. Consistent with the terms of reference, the
review has focused on the operation of the executive rather than other branches of
government – Parliament or the Judiciary. The review is aimed at the performance of the
system in (among other things) supporting Ministerial decision-making, and
implementing government policy decisions, and delivering services. It is not about the
merits of particular government policies.
- The review suggests a direction for change, rather than specifying all the details or
costings of the change. Some of the recommendations make the future aspiration clear,
but will require further analysis to test and refine the actions to be taken.
The objectives of the review
- We have approached the terms of reference not so much as a set of criticisms of the
past to be debated and tested at length, but rather as a challenge to create a more flexible
and resilient public management system that will perform in the 21st century. The
Government’s objective is to maintain and strengthen the State sector. From the terms of
reference, the Government:
- wants frontline staff to have effective support so they can provide the best possible
service for New Zealanders;
- values capable analytical staff who can provide useful and balanced advice;
- looks to the senior staff of the Public Service to provide leadership and management
in order to co-ordinate the full range of work across the Public Service;
- calls for a renewal of the processes and practices that provide a strong centre to the
State sector;
- is particularly interested in strengthening management and co-ordination processes
to ensure a whole of government focus is adopted and maintained by all agencies.
- In the course of the review other issues were identified such as the effectiveness of
the interface between officials and Ministers, and the extent to which the State sector is
effective for Maori.
Review method
- The Advisory Committee was supported by an inter-agency secretariat drawn from
Treasury, SSC, Te Puni Kokiri and Department of Labour. Information for the review was
collected from a wide variety of sources, informed by data wherever possible and subject
to analysis and review. These sources included:
- Research studies. We commissioned an analysis of evaluations of the quality of
service delivery in the public sector, and work on private sector management
trends. We also used information from a survey of citizens’ expectations of
government service delivery undertaken by the e-government unit;
- Case studies: We commissioned three case studies to look at collaboration, frontline
service delivery, community development and economic development;
- We ran focus groups with frontline staff to explore service delivery issues;
- Hui: We ran two hui with a focus on seniorMaori public servants for one and Maori
consultants and commentators for the other;
- Published work by commentators, some of which is summarised in Appendix 3;
- Interviews were conducted with stakeholders - frontline staff and their managers,
local government, business, community groups, unions, Ministers, public sector
CEs, Crown Entity CEs, not-for-profit experts, second tier public managers,
academics, commentators and consultants in public management (Appendix 4);
- SSC and Treasury staff contributed strongly to the analytical work;
- Peer review: Allen Schick visited New Zealand and worked with the secretariat and
the Advisory Group. More widespread review by chief executives, commentators
and practitioners took place in the latter stages of the project;
- Quantitative analysis: In order to test some assumptions in relation to capability and
ethos in the public sector, a summary of the existing databases on human resources
in the public sector was commissioned.
- The Advisory Group has used a number of sources to reach conclusions about the way in which the State sector is functioning.
The structure of the paper
- This paper follows the format outlined below:
- A brief assessment of the State sector
- New Directions - Proposals
- How will this make a difference (for citizens and ministers)?
- Where to from here?
|
|
