Working to make government more effective

Comment

New Zealand's reforms to improve policymaking

New Zealand's Prime Minister’s recent endorsement signals that reforms are on track, says public servant and guest blogger, Sally Washington.

In April 2016, Nehal Davison, from the Institute for Government, concluded that big reforms to improve policymaking in New Zealand had reached a ‘critical transition point’, which risked tailing off. The New Zealand Prime Minister’s recent endorsement signal that the reforms are on track, says public servant and guest blogger, Sally Washington.

Prime Minister John Key launched three policy improvement frameworks produced by the Policy Project, a cross-agency team tasked with lifting policy quality and capability across the New Zealand Public Service. He praised the Public Service (the equivalent of the UK Civil Service), but added that any good organisation had to look to the future – maintaining and building capability to continuously improve its offering to its clients and customers. He said he could see how the Policy Project frameworks would help the Public Service do a better job of advising ministers. This high-level support is good news. It adds weight to the narrative that common frameworks will support more consistency in the quality of policy advice, the skills of policy practitioners and the capability of policy organisations, and ultimately improve overall system capability. The reform also has strong backing from senior leaders. Andrew Kibblewhite, Head of the Policy Profession (HoPP) and Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), describes the three frameworks as ‘a mutually reinforcing infrastructure for improving policy quality and capability’. The new State Services Commissioner, Peter Hughes, has also weighed in, linking the Policy Project to the leadership and stewardship responsibilities of senior leaders. I’m optimistic that the programme will forge ahead, building on the solid foundation of the frameworks. But I don’t expect plain sailing – there will be challenges. Let me first describe the frameworks, and then share some insights on the ongoing challenges of a whole-of-government programme to improve policy quality and capability. A policy improvement infrastructure The three frameworks include:
  • The Policy Capability Framework – sets out what makes for a high-performing policy team against factors such as stewardship (investing in capability for the future), systems and processes for delivering quality advice, and being customer-centric.
  • The Policy Skills Framework – sets out what great policy advisers look like – what knowledge and applied skills they need, and what behaviour is expected of them. It can be used for professional development and recruitment.
  • The Policy Quality Framework – sets out what great policy advice looks like and what enables it. It calls for policy advice that engages and helps decision makers; is clear about the problem; informed by evidence; balances what is desirable; is possible and cost-effective; and politically savvy.
The frameworks and supporting tools are all accessible on the Policy Project website. We are keen to share them and are open to feedback from local and international colleagues. Embedding the change The frameworks were developed by the Policy Project in collaboration with a broad cross-section of the New Zealand policy community. This co-production was crucial and resulted in a smooth run to endorsement by senior policy leaders and ultimately, the Prime Minister. But where the rubber hits the road is getting departments to adopt and use the frameworks. Early indications are positive. The Policy Capability Framework is used in a range of contexts: for senior leadership away days, team building exercises, and in organisational self-reviews. The Policy Skills Framework has been used in performance and promotion rounds and for recruitment. The three central agencies – the Treasury, the State Services Commission and the DPMC – have taken the lead in adopting the Policy Quality Framework and have assessed the quality of their advice (which is reported in annual reports) against the ex-post assessment tool. But this is just a start. The Policy Project supports early adopters, but the challenge is to drive changes throughout the Public Service. Phase 2 of the Policy Project will focus on embedding the frameworks more widely, which will require overcoming the ‘deep-rooted silo tendencies’ of departments, without reverting to command and control tactics. We want genuine improvement, not compliance behaviour. Having senior sponsorship is vital. Andrew Kibblewhite has called on policy leaders to adopt and use the frameworks in their departments: ‘We now need to embed these frameworks in our thinking and our behaviour. This is about us thinking system and not just agency – one policy community that supports the government of the day in the service of the people of New Zealand’. Innovating the policy practice While the frameworks reflect ‘getting the basics right’, they also signal areas where, as a policy community, we need to lift our game – which we will explore further in Phase 2. These include a focus on ‘evidence and insights’ and building the policy toolkit to include the full range of methods to inform policy, from methods to understand large populations (big data, the ‘investment approach’) to methods for uncovering deep insights about users and their needs (including behavioural insights and design-thinking methodologies). We will also build on the theme of ‘free, frank and other F-words’ advice, and tackle some of the workforce issues in a public management system where each department is responsible for its own workforce and competes with other departments for policy talent. And we have barely touched the surface of the ‘demand side’, supporting ministers to be ‘intelligent customers’ of advice and negotiating space in work programmes for longer-term thinking and stewardship responsibilities (which are now a legislative obligation for chief executives). There is much to be done. Hurdles - funding and governance Dependence on voluntary contributions from departments (‘club funding’) has its challenges, including the logistics of the annual passing of the hat and the uncertainty of the overall budget. We will stick with this model in the interim, rather than make a budget bid or move to something like the levy model of our UK HoPP counterparts. Contributions are an indicator that we are doing the right thing and mean that departments have some ‘skin in the game’ and ownership of the work programme. However, the Policy Project team remains small, with currently only 3.5 FTEs and an ambitious Phase 2 work programme to deliver. Looking to our UK counterparts for lessons, we have adjusted governance of the Policy Project. The programme is now overseen by a Head of the Policy Profession Board. However, unlike the formal departmental heads of the policy profession that support Chris Wormald in his UK HoPP role, the New Zealand version is a small group of chief executives and deputies (five of each) chosen because they have been active supporters of the programme and likely to be system champions. The quest for ‘Goldilocks governance’ – that can take decisions, champion the work programme and allow agility for the programme to adjust to changing conditions, leverage other reform initiatives and ‘follow the energy’ –  remains a challenge. Time will tell if we have got it ‘just right’. Steal with pride It is useful to draw on the wisdom of international counterparts trying to improve the quality of policy advice in their natural habitats. The challenge of supporting good decision making to add public value is a universal one. I have adopted (nay stolen) the UK Head of the Policy Profession Support Unit (PPSU) mantra of ‘steal with pride’ – learn from others and adopt and adapt. Our Policy Skills Framework was inspired by my discussions with the PPSU. Our respective HoPPs have semi-regular distance conversations. Our Australian colleagues have expressed interest in the Policy Project – we have a series of talks and engagements lined up. Nehal’s short secondment to the Policy Project team was also mutually beneficial and facilitated cross-jurisdictional sharing of strategies and insights. Andrew Kibblewhite says he wants the business of providing advice in New Zealand to be world-leading: ‘Our advice is based on the best available evidence and user insights – an understanding of the real lives of real people – we know what works and we keep striving for new and better ways of doing things. We can identify the ‘big issues’ (whether future, looming or cross-cutting) and can mobilise to collectively find solutions that improve the lives of New Zealanders.’ If we all pledge to share our successes, failures and lessons across jurisdictions, then we might be able to support better decision making and make a difference to people’s lives, wherever they live. Isn’t that why we are in the policy game?
Country (international)
New Zealand
Publisher
Institute for Government

Related content