OPINION: To most of us, the idea that there might be a separation between politics and politicians and public management and officials is not that interesting.
For most, politicians are elected every three years. Officials are appointed. Politicians set the strategy and makes decisions. Officials prepare advice on strategy, and when decisions are made, implements those decisions, while keeping politicians up to date on progress.
For most of us, that’s how it should and does work.
However, as with most things, it is not that simple. The poneketanga narrative is the old public service was a drawn-out aberration, and while the new public management reforms might have been a mistake, both have been corrected with the Public Service Act 2020.
I don’t think we will know if the new statutory framework will be a success for another twenty years. But one of the things I do like about the new Public Service Act is that it acknowledges that our public institutions and public servants are not subordinate to politics or politicians. Indeed, the new statutory framework emphasises balancing, matching and harmonising the different roles of politicians and officials.
With that in mind, I do like the focus all political parties are putting on ensuring our public institutions can
meet the expectations of the people and communities. I also note both the centre-right and right parties understand the vital role the public service has to play in delivering the integrated, demonstrably high-performing public services required while indicating they look to other sources of advice and delivery to ensure their policies are enthusiastically implemented.
I would offer a word of caution – to all those seeking the privilege of occupying the Treasury benches. The
space between politicians and public servants – he pāpura or the purple zone – works best for everyone when there is some shared accountability and positive working relationships.
The public service needs a real focus on the government’s priorities and to assure ministers they are delivering core business efficiently, effectively, and equitably. It is equally important that the political machine clarifies its priorities and makes the necessary trade-offs. A poor-performing minister or a chaotic ministerial office will be a problem for an institution – no matter how good the institution is.
Similarly, while a chief executive needs to maintain and sustain their institutional capability. And it is as
essential for a minister to ensure the same institution is funded appropriately and can manage change
without compromising its core business or response to future needs.
We must never forget the lessons of Cave Creek.
Likewise, a chief executive should be able to offer a compelling performance story for executing a government strategy. Equally, a minister should not fear accountability that must be used to drive what matters. Ministers must also be capable of telling that story to the public.
I offer this reminder – one of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s greatest assets is the trust people have in our public institutions and our public servants.
An ethical and impartial public service is fundamental to maintaining that trust. But that’s not all those
institutions need to maintain confidence; they also need to deliver, be seen to provide and deliver reliable
and consistent services to all. I look forward to a new administration – whomever that is – being able to
govern with this in mind.
Deb Te Kawa (Ngāti Porou)