ps dec 13 finalweb

December 2013 Public Sector 1

J o u r n a l o f t h e I n s t i t u t e o f P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n N e w Z e a l a n d

Rāngai Tūmatanui

Public Sector is printed on an economically and environmentally responsible paper sourced from internationally certified Well Managed Forests and manufactured with EMAS accreditation (ISO 14001).

C O N T E N T SPRESIDENT’S MESSAGE: Politics rule, right? by John Larkindale .............................2

IPANZ recognises top public management student ..............................................2

Brief update on the Constitution Question forum .................................................3

COVER STORY Workplace safety – have we got it right? ...........................................................4–9

The reluctant customer – transforming the collections operating model .............................................................................................. 10–11

Improving health and combating inequality in the Bay of Plenty – Toi Ora .............................................................................12–14

GUEST EDITORIAL: The revolution is coming – the Manaiakalani programme by Patrick Snedden ............................................................................................... 15

Open book – a conversation with Jeremy Palmer ....................................... 16–17

Interview with Professor Brad Jackson: Leadership – getting to the truth ..................................................................18–19

Thinking localism ............................................................................................20–23

POINT OF VIEW: Lessons from Pike River by Nicholas Davidson QC ..................... 24

Front cover image: Construction workers © Robert Cumming | Dreamstime.com

PUBLISHERThe Institute of Public Administration New ZealandPO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand Phone: +64 4 463 6940, Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ipanz.org.nzISSN 0110-5191 (Print)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.EDITORShelly Farr Biswell: [email protected] BillingtonSimon BridgesNicholas DavidsonJohn LarkindaleAndrew LittleMargaret McLachlanRose NorthcottKathy OmblerMax RashbrookePatrick SneddenPROOFREADERSNikki Crutchley Rose NorthcottJOURNAL ADVISORY GROUPLen Cook Chris Eichbaum, ChairSusan HitchinerJohn LarkindaleJulian LightMargaret McLachlan Ross TannerADVERTISINGPhone: +64 4 463 6940 Fax: +64 4 463 6939 Email: [email protected]&K DesignPRINTINGLithoprintSCOPEIPANZ is committed to promoting informed debate on issues already significant in the way New Zealanders govern themselves, or which are emerging as issues calling for decisions on what sorts of laws and management New Zealanders are prepared to accept. INFORMATION FOR AUTHORSPublic Sector considers contributions for each issue. Please contact the journal’s editor for more information.SUBSCRIPTIONSIPANZ welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions. Please email [email protected], phone +64 4 463 6940 or visit www.ipanz.org.nz to register online.DISCLAIMEROpinions expressed in Public Sector are those of various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor, the journal advisory group or IPANZ. Every effort is made to provide accurate and fac-tual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur.

12–14 Toi Ora

Improving health and combating inequality in

the Bay of Plenty

10–11 The reluctant

customer – transforming the

collections operating model

15The revolution

is coming –the Manaiakalani

programme

Vo l u m e 3 6 : 4 D e c e m b e r 2 01 3

http://www.ipanz.org.nz

2 Public Sector December 2013

Recently, I was in the United States where I witnessed first hand the federal govern-

ment shutdown following a disa-greement between the House of Representatives, in which the Republicans have the majority, and the Senate, where the Democrats have control. In short, the Republicans sought to “defund” the Affordable Care Act which came into law three years ago and to which the Republican Party is doctrinally opposed. Some also sought to impose further condi-tions on President Obama as the price for passing a new budget. The Democrats in the Senate were equally steadfast in refusing to pass any partial funding bills or to undercut the health reforms. To compound the problem, the legislated borrowing limit for the US government was also rapidly approaching, meaning the US was well on its way to defaulting on its bonds for the first time in its 237-year history.

Looking at this imbroglio through my New Zealand eyes (although I have spent a fair number of years in North America), my first reaction was one of gratitude that this situation could not happen in New Zealand. Governments routinely seek guarantees of supply in their formative process, and should this be withdrawn at any time, there

is an established process where either an alternative government is formed or a new election is called. Either way, government funding continues to be provided for.

But even more significantly, it seems unlikely to me that the kind of political partisanship that led to this situation in the US could come to pass in New Zealand. Political contests in New Zealand are largely to capture the centre and as much of the surrounding political space as possible. This ensures that views of either the political far left or far right obtain only limited support in terms of those elected to office. By contrast, in the US, electoral boundaries for the majority of seats in the House of Representatives have over the years been drawn in such a way by partisan state governments that very few of those seats are genu-inely in play in any election. I have seen estimates that suggest that as few as 10 to 15 per cent of seats have any chance of changing polit-ical affiliation at any election. The real contest, thus, is in the prima-ries. For example, any Republican with something approaching centrist views will be very much aware that they are likely to be challenged from the right, thus ensuring that they too steer in that direction.

Again, it seems to me that we are fortunate in our MMP electoral

system. There are certainly elements that are less than ideal, but with the central feature being that governments are made and lost through the party vote, we are protected from the kind of gerrymandering seen in the US.

One reflection of the increasing dysfunctionality of the US system is that fewer than 45 per cent of those polled in a recent survey say they have faith in the US government. Is this the beginning of an irreversible change in the political “consent environment” that I referred to in the last issue of Public Sector? What might be the consequences in a country that already has profound isolationist impulses and where individuality and distrust of government are long-ingrained beliefs? And what might this mean for the world more broadly, including New Zealand?

New Zealand has skin in this game but no means of influencing it. But what we can take from these events in the US is that an over-politicisation of the democratic process is a risky endeavour. We are fortunate that the framework of our system was laid down with the passage of the Public Service Act 1912, and these fundamental principles have in large part been maintained in the subsequent amending pieces of legislation that have appeared in the past

century. However, we need to be alert to changes in practice that might erode what we have long accepted. There is good reason for boundaries to be set between what is considered “political” and what is “public service”; some recent erosion of these gives rise to legitimate concern.

Even in Australia we have seen Prime Minister Tony Abbott dismissing a number of departmental chief executives, allegedly for their active prosecution of the previous government’s policy agenda. A CEO’s job is precisely that of implementing the government’s programme, while of course also providing appropriate advice on risks and benefits. Active implementation by a public servant of a government’s policies does not mean an inability or an unwillingness to implement those of a replacement government just as professionally. Nor should it be used as a reason to put in place a new CEO with partisan political views.

Australia and the US are not New Zealand. We have our own traditions and legislated princi-ples and practices, but there is a need to learn from the challenges of other countries and to guard against a more politicised public service which would not serve New Zealand well.

IPANZ recognises top public management studentNicola (Nicky) Wilcox was recently awarded the IPANZ Public Management Prize for top marks in a third-year course in public management at the School of Government, Victoria University.

IPANZ President John Larkindale says, “IPANZ sponsors the prize (worth $500) to show its support for the next generation studying governance and public policy. We are delighted it has gone to such a worthy recipient.”

Wilcox did the course last year as part of her Bachelor of Commerce in Public Policy. She’s continued her studies in 2013 towards a conjoint degree, with a Bachelor of Science, majoring in geography and development studies.

“I chose geography-related courses because I am very interested

in developmental policy and environmental studies. I would like to do post-graduate study, but in the meantime I’m having a gap year,” Wilcox says.

Her gap year includes going to Orlando, Florida, on a Walt Disney cultural exchange. She will be a concierge – learning about Walt Disney World and customer service.

A quick trip to Asia recently gave her a taste for travel and opened her eyes to other cultures.

“I want to have a little more experience before I see where and how I go with further study.”

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Politics rule, right? By IPANZ President John Larkindale


We have the Talent!82% of our clients’ vacancies are filled by candidates who are known to us. That’s why the best public sector professionals register to join our talent pool; and because they trust us to find them a great job.

Visit www.thejohnsongroup.co.nz to find out more.

YOUR FIRST CHOICE FORPUBLIC SECTOR PROFESSIONALS

Recognising excellenceOne of our main events of the year is the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards. The 2013 awards ceremony was again a chance to recognise and celebrate success in the public sector. From over 80 nomi-nations, nine winners were chosen, including the Prime Minister’s Award winner the Ministry of Social Development’s ‘It’s OK to Help’ campaign.

Nominations for the 2014 awards will open on 20 January. For more information: www.ipanz.org.nz/excellenceawards

Architecture graduate student Carinnya Feaunati.

The Constitution QuestionWhat kind of democracy will we have in the future? What will New Zealand citizenship look like? Where does the Treaty of Waitangi fit with all this?

In November, the Rotary Club of Wellington and the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria

University of Wellington, hosted a forum on New Zealand’s constitution. The forum attracted 70 participants and 16 present-ers with a range of divergent views.

A number of speakers discussed the role of the Treaty of Waitangi as part of New Zealand’s constitutional fabric. Dr Matthew Palmer, a constitutional law expert, said the treaty should be in the constitution, with the ability to settle disputes via the courts. Dr Muriel Newman, of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, held the opposite view. She said, “The consequences [if it were included] would be that every law could be open to challenge. Rights should be based on citi-zenship, not race.”

While many of the speakers may be household names in New Zealand, the forum also featured a number of new voices, including architecture graduate student Carinnya Feaunati who volun-teers for several Pasifika student groups. Feaunati spoke of the New Zealand consti-tution in a Pasifika context.

“Pacific people are intelligent and equipped with the means to become self-sufficient and self-reliant. I urge young people to know who we are and what we contribute to the world. It is also impor-tant for New Zealand as a whole to play its part in creating a future for young Pasifika people.”

For more information about the forum and to read some of the presentations, visit www.rotaryforum.org.nz.


Workplace safety – have we got it right?

Few bodies have a more daunting or a more important task ahead of them than the newly created WorkSafe New Zealand. MAX RASHBROOKE reports on the agency that has been set up to cut New Zealand’s deaths and serious injuries at work by a quarter and ensure everyone who goes to work comes home safe and sound. Can it deliver?

For Gregor Coster, the Chair of the WorkSafe New Zealand Board, the fight to improve workplace health and safety in New Zealand has a personal element. “In 2011, we lost 143 people to asbestos-related disease,” he says. “One of my closest friends was one of

those people.” It’s a clear reminder, if it were needed, of “how we need to do things better” in this country.

WorkSafe NZ, which is a stand-alone Crown agent, officially starts operations on 16 December 2013. Its establishment was one of the key recommendations of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety, which was itself a response in part to the 2010 Pike River Mine disaster. Pike River laid bare the fact that New Zealand has long had an appalling record on workplace health and safety.

As Coster points out, in New Zealand, population 4.5 million, around 75 people die each year at work. In the UK, population 70 million, that figure is 170. “New Zealand is losing far more people per head of popula-tion than do other first-world countries,” Coster says. (Quite apart from the human toll, the economic cost of New Zealand’s workplace deaths and serious injuries was estimated in 2010 at $3.5 billion a year – almost two per cent of GDP.)

Coster, who has also been appointed to the ACC Board and is the outgoing Chair of the Counties Manukau District Health Board, has led the transition of the workplace health and safety regulatory functions from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to WorkSafe NZ. The board is shortly expected to appoint a permanent chief execu-tive for WorkSafe NZ to replace Geoffrey Podger, former head of the UK equivalent regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, who was brought in

for six months as Acting CE until March 2014.

Identifying the problemThe task the board confronts is to overcome years of underperformance on workplace health and safety. As the independent taskforce’s report made clear, New Zealand erred – fatally, as it turns out – in the 1990s by implementing “a much lighter version” of the internationally standard workplace health and safety model. This stemmed from the prevailing attitudes and policies of the time, including public sector staff cuts, “changing attitudes towards the roles of government and business, including an ethos of business self-regulation”, and liberalisation of the labour market, “with weakened union representation”.

The results have been hugely damaging. New Zealand lacks the incentives and deterrents – both carrot and stick – to make businesses comply with work-place health and safety rules and to create a culture that values safety at work. Penalties for poor

performance are “far too low”. As the taskforce pointed out: “The low likelihood of inspector visits, and of prosecution or other action, creates an uneven play-ing field and effectively rewards non-compliance.” More gener-ally, New Zealand has developed a “risk tolerant” culture. “Our national culture includes a high level of tolerance for risk, and negative perceptions of health and safety. Kiwi stoicism, deference to authority, laid-back complacency and suspicion of red tape all affect behaviour from the boardroom to the shop floor … workplaces are liable to develop, accept and defend low standards, dangerous practices and inadequate systems.”

The taskforce recommended that the government aim for a 25 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries at work by 2020. It called this target “modest”, but admitted that a very long list of things – including better laws, a stronger regulatory toolkit, more leadership, greater commitment and participation from everyone in the workplace, more robust data

© A

wcn

z62

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m


>

and better guidance – were put in place. In particular, a stronger focus is needed on the five indus-tries – manufacturing, construc-tion, agriculture, forestry, and fish-ing – that account for more than half of all workplace injury entitle-ment claims.

The taskforce also called for a stand-alone workplace health and safety regulator to be created – and run on a tripartite basis, with government, business and unions all playing their part. This has created the first bump on the road, as the Minister responsible for workplace health and safety, Simon Bridges, chose to appoint the board himself rather than allow business and unions to effec-tively nominate their own repre-sentatives. Glenn Barclay, who is coordinating the Council of Trade Unions’ work around work-place health and safety, says that although the WorkSafe NZ estab-lishment board “has been posi-tive, and there’s good intentions from them to engage with part-ners … it’s less than we want.” The board does include former CTU President Ross Wilson, but he is not there as a representative of unions, but by decision of the minister to reflect the “perspectives of workers”.

Julian Hughes, the Executive Director of the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum, says it “would have made sense” to have followed the taskforce’s approach of genuine tripartism, which would have got everyone “start-ing from the same place”. Because that’s not happened, “we have already created a level of division, rather than getting all the play-ers together. It feels to us like there is a tripartite approach happen-ing,” Hughes adds. “[But] the risk

is that if it is not in statute, it may not continue.”

Coster insists, however, that close relationships have already been established with the CTU and individual unions. Meanwhile Geoffrey Podger says, “At the end of the day, it’s the minister’s selec-tion.” And, in what might be taken as a veiled warning to both sides, he adds that one key part of a tripartite approach is that “both sides of industry accept that they have a strong responsibility in respect to health and safety and that … people shouldn’t use health and safety for seeking to forward or defend other issues.”

One major issue for WorkSafe NZ will be to boost the number of inspectors. AUT University’s Felicity Lamm, an Associate Professor of employment relations, says the agency’s biggest challenge “quite frankly, is pulling together a competent team, because they have let the inspectorate run down so badly [since the 1980s] that there just isn’t the capacity any more

within the public sector.” In July this year there were only 100 or so frontline inspectors on the books – numbers that were cut even as recently as this year, in the latest bout of MBIE restructuring – but the agency needs at least 200, and quickly.

Barclay says the CTU is “worried” about the number of inspectors. “The inspectorate is critical. Under the Australian Model Law they are responsible for a whole lot of things, like resolv-ing disputes between workers and employers on workplace health and safety issues. There’s going to be a lot more asked of them.” Podger acknowledges the issue is “a high priority”, but adds: “We’re doing quite a lot of recruitment even as we speak … We are certainly going to do our best to get to it [the target of 200], and we’re going to consider more innovative ways of training so as to reduce the burden on our existing staff.” As to what those “more innovative ways” are, “We are still discussing them,” he says, diplomatically.

Of independence and leadershipThere are also questions about whether WorkSafe NZ has the

independence and clear leader-ship role that the taskforce argued it needed. While it is a stand-alone Crown agent, the policy develop-ment on workplace health and safety and the issuing of regula-tions have stayed with MBIE. Podger looks on the bright side of this particular situation, saying it is “one of those, ‘How do you cut the cake?’ questions. The decision is taken, fine. The key thing now is to make it work, and both we and our MBIE colleagues on the policy side are determined to do that. There is one significant advan-tage, which is that our sponsoring department [MBIE] will actually have a very strong vested interest in seeing us succeed.” By contrast, in the UK, where the HSE carries out the policy work, “it would be fair to say that their sponsoring depart-ment really has little interest in the success of the enterprise.”

WorkSafe NZ was also supposed to take over the fund-ing of workplace harm prevention programmes from ACC, instead the funding will be held as a joint pool and used only if both agencies agree. Podger says this is another “how do you cut the cake?” issue, and insists that ACC is “very keen

The taskforce also called for a stand-alone workplace health and safety regulator to be created – and run on a tripartite basis, with government, business and unions all playing their part.

© L

ucid

wat

ers

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m


indeed both to work with us and to fund programmes”.

It has been suggested that the two agencies may have different priorities. ACC’s legislation says its spending must contribute directly to reducing the cost of workplace injury; this doesn’t necessarily drive it to reduce deaths at work – which create no ongoing cost to ACC – and it leaves open the question of how one can prove that spending on occupational health programmes will fit that mandate, given their long timeframes. Podger is not worried by these issues, however: “You don’t normally engage in a different approach to reducing deaths from reducing injury. I think that’s a rather theoretical objection.”

WorkSafe NZ’s leadership role is also still being sorted out in areas such as transport, where there are multiple agencies – includ-ing the Civil Aviation Authority, Maritime New Zealand and the New Zealand Transport Agency – whose approaches are not currently coordinated. The taskforce envis-aged WorkSafe NZ as the primary regulator and the others as having delegated functions, but the actual approach may leave responsibili-ties unchanged in favour of greater cooperation between the trans-port agencies. Podger says he has “already had initial discussions with the transport agencies around this. The key point is to estab-lish that there are not areas which

fall between the cracks.” But those agencies “still have a responsibil-ity for workplace health and safety. I think there is much to be said in favour of that. I don’t think strip-ping out workplace health and safety from those agencies would be a desirable approach.”

Shifting cultureHow to achieve a wider culture change around workplace health and safety, and the role of prosecu-tion in that change, is also disputed territory. While some look over-seas for inspiration, Podger warns that the UK, for instance, “is not actually a paradise on earth. The UK has undoubtedly had far more problems with people going over the top in relation to workplace

Labour Minister Simon Bridges

An unacceptable number of people are harmed and killed in our workplaces. The Pike River Coal Mine tragedy brought

this fact into sharp focus and demanded that we take an effective, system-wide approach to workplace health and safety. We have the opportunity to create a world-class system with a new world-class regulator leading the way.

Both the Royal Commission into the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the subsequent Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety strongly recommended the establishment of a new Crown agent focusing solely on health and safety. The bill to establish WorkSafe New Zealand passed into law on 14 November 2013.

New Zealand’s workplace health and safety regulator needs to have its own identity in order to rebuild public confidence. A Crown agent with a single focus will help build that confidence.

WorkSafe NZ has an executive board with a wide range of workplace health and safety expertise to give strategic direction and support. I am confident that establishing WorkSafe NZ provides the best and most stable platform to drive and achieve the long-term and significant improvements needed.

However, changing the form of the regulator alone will not be enough to achieve the government’s goal of reducing the rate of workplace fatalities and serious injuries by at least 25 per cent by 2020.

WorkSafe NZ will lead the operational delivery of the reform pack-age Working Safer. The Government intends to overhaul health and safety laws, and to support this WorkSafe NZ will provide clear

and consistent guidelines and information for business. It also has additional funding to strengthen enforcement and education, with a focus on high-risk areas and better coordination between government agencies.

The new workplace health and safety legislation lays out the framework for WorkSafe NZ to work within, and the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy will set out WorkSafe NZ’s priorities. The focus will be on increasing compliance without creating a burden for businesses, and better management of high and catastrophic risk. It will hold people to account as well as performing critical roles relating to guidance, education and providing incentives for harm prevention.

Businesses will find it easier to work with WorkSafe NZ and to understand their health and safety obligations. They will get more support from inspectors, who will make more proactive visits, and WorkSafe NZ will provide improved information and support for currently hard-to-reach groups of employers and workers. WorkSafe NZ will also have a much greater operational focus than its predecessors on occupational health.

Dr Gregor Coster, Chair of the WorkSafe NZ Board, and Geoffrey Podger, Acting Chief Executive-Designate for WorkSafe NZ and previously Chief Executive of the UK’s Health and Safety Executive, are doing an excellent job of ensuring WorkSafe NZ is effective from the very first day it becomes fully operational on 16 December 2013.

Political comment – WorkSafe New ZealandWe asked both Labour Minister Simon Bridges and Labour Party Spokesperson for Labour Andrew Little for brief statements about the establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand. Below are their responses.

One of the biggest tasks for WorkSafe NZ, and for unions, is to develop the agreed codes of practice that will set out what needs to happen in workplaces, underpinning the high-level principles in the legislation.


health and safety and imposing quite unnecessary demands on people.”

He adds, “I’m not remotely squeamish about prosecuting people if the circumstances justify it. Equally, manic prosecution is not going to be the answer to the problems here … ultimately, what governs your fatality [rates] and major injuries and occupa-tional health is not what happens when the regulator is there, but what happens when the regulator is not there.” In this he is backed up by Gregor Coster, who says that although WorkSafe NZ will be “a much tougher regulator than we have seen in the past”, its first moves “will be in terms of educa-

tion and support for business, so that businesses understand their responsibilities and have a clear understanding of regulations.”

Glenn Barclay would definitely like to see a tougher approach: “We would expect there to be more enforcement than there has been. There is nothing like seeing a few senior heads roll to shake up people’s attitudes.” And he warns that it is not as simple as saying, education first, enforcement later. “The literature talks about an ‘advice and influence’ approach leading to ambiguity about crimi-nal offences. There needs to be a firm approach from the regula-tor … and a clear statement of what the new agency policy is

going to be around enforcement and compliance.” WorkSafe NZ also needs to ensure that new tools such as ‘enforceable undertakings’ – under which it can give busi-nesses a chance to remedy breaches by making certain changes, instead of being prosecuted – are not used “in really serious cases”.

Julian Hughes says culture change is required amongst not just business but also workers and government: “It is not just one leadership. All three of those groups have to demonstrate a really strong commitment to wanting to improve.” But business “does potentially have the biggest influ-ence” on changing New Zealand’s workplace health and safety record.

Here, policymakers have to recog-nise that businesses come in one of three different varieties. “There’s a chunk of New Zealand businesses who will do well no matter what happens. There’s a large chunk who want to do the right thing but don’t know how. And there’s a big group who really don’t get it, who won’t take responsibility for it.”

Moving more businesses into the first category will take several things, Hughes says. One is encouraging the good perform-ers to tell their stories and spread best practice. But he hopes bigger businesses will also use their supply chain leverage and say they are not prepared to do business with poor workplace health and safety

MP Andrew Little – Labour spokesperson

A stand-alone agency for workplace health and safety in New Zealand is welcome. Whether WorkSafe New Zealand in

its current form is the answer to our worsening workplace accident and fatality rates I regrettably have doubts.

We all know the origins of WorkSafe NZ. The Occupational Safety and Health division of the old Labour Department was becoming less effective in workplace safety regulation and enforcement. In dangerous industries like mining, inspections were few and far between. Notified incidents which 10 years earlier would have resulted in the immediate attendance of an inspector were routinely left unattended.

Then Pike River happened. The Royal Commission into the Pike River Mine Tragedy

recommended a stand-alone agency rather than one buried deep in the machinery of a super-ministry. The independent review of workplace safety in April this year made the same recommendation.

The Health and Safety in Employment Act (HASE) was modelled on its British equivalent. It imposed overarching but very clear duties on employers and workers. It required hazard identification and the elimination/minimisation/isolation hierarchy for hazard management.

The British model of health and safety regulation and enforce-ment was seen as one of the world’s best, and still is. Its workplace fatality rate is way below ours.

The reality is HASE hasn’t worked here. There are some obvious reasons. A lack of resourcing of the inspectorate is one.

But by far and away the most important reason in my view is it failed to incorporate the one feature Lord Robens, the architect of the UK scheme, said was vital: a genuine partnership between the government, employers and workers. Yes, a tripartite model.

The reason was obvious. Not only are frontline workers rather than managers the ones who are routinely killed, maimed and injured at work, but they are the ones best equipped to know the real hazards and how to manage them effectively.

The UK Health and Safety Executive, which our WorkSafe NZ is based on, had equal representation of employers and workers on its board to signal the importance of worker engagement. HASE was never effective on worker involvement because it was conceived at a time of hostility towards unions and the idea that workers should have a strong and independent voice at work.

Worker engagement on health and safety is paid lip service in New Zealand.

Until we accept, culturally in our workplaces and in our legislation, that frontline workers must be at the centre of how we manage health and safety in this country, that there must be genuine tripartism, then we will continue to be a poor performer on workplace safety. That means more workers and their families making unnecessary sacrifices with life and limb.

>


© L

ucid

wat

ers

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m

performers further down the chain: “They can use their influence to influence others.” For the most recalcitrant, however, “you need a really strong regulator who can hold them to account”.

Incentives matter, of course.

Work is being done on a ‘star ratings’ scheme that would rank businesses according to their work-place health and safety record. Hughes supports this idea in prin-ciple, while remaining cautious about how it would actually work.

Podger agrees that policymak-ers “have to be very careful about how [they] draw up such schemes”. One danger is that rewards for low levels of workplace accidents may simply encourage underreporting. For that reason, the ratings could

be linked to things like having good workplace health and safety systems, he says.

Another potential incentive is a financial discount for good performers – although Hughes warns that the current ACC discount levy scheme, though once a powerful innovation, is no longer “fit for purpose”, since it has not been updated since it was introduced and does not provide certainty that it is really reward-ing the best performers. Coster, meanwhile, says he has been heart-ened by the business response so far. He has been to speak to the boards of several major compa-nies – including Ports of Auckland, Ravensdown, Sanford, Vector and Skellerup – and has invites for many more.

Unsurprisingly, the unions are on board too – and facing a great deal of work, Barclay says. One of the biggest tasks for WorkSafe NZ, and for unions, is to develop

The lethal nexus: A poor workplace health and safety record affects some groups more than others

Within New Zealand’s terrible record on workplace health and safety, there are some areas of particular concern.

As the report from the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety noted, Māori workers, Pasifika workers and workers of other ethnicities are more likely to be seriously injured or killed at work. Other vulnerable groups include “males, youth, older people, the self-employed and workers with low literacy and numeracy skills”, as well as recent migrants and people engaged in casual and contract work. There is, the report concluded, “a lethal nexus between high-risk population groups and high-risk industries”.

In other words, certain groups – notably Māori and Pasifika workers – tend to work in the industries that cause most workplace injuries and deaths: manufacturing, construction, agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Syd Keepa, the CTU’s Vice President Māori, says the taskforce is absolutely right: “A lot of the jobs they [Māori workers] do, basically … are labouring jobs in the forestry industries and things like that.”

Māori workers also tend to be low-paid and work in industries with chains of contractors and sub-contractors – which blur accountability in a dangerous way, the taskforce found. Keepa, who has worked in forestry, pulp and paper

mills, and tunnelling, among other jobs, feels these industries have become progressively more dangerous. “Especially in forestry, when workers were unionised, we used to be pretty hard on health and safety. If we felt a job was unsafe to do, we just wouldn’t do it. It’s a bit different these days.”

The taskforce urged WorkSafe NZ to target its activities towards the highest-risk population groups, using measures such as language and communication skills training for workers with poor literacy. Forestry health and safety, meanwhile, will be put under the spotlight with Bay of Plenty Coroner Wallace Bain conducting five inquests into forestry workers’ deaths in the Bay of Plenty next March to shed light on systemic issues within the industry. For Māori, this industry is especially important, since every Treaty settlement signed so far “has [some] content of forestry in it”, Keepa says.

Since August 2012, the CTU has been building relationships with iwi on working conditions in forestry and other industries. “The main point that we’d like to get across in this relationship is worker well-being for our people, which means health and safety and related issues.” It’s all part of what Keepa sees as a huge push in this area: “There’s a helluva big shift needed, if we are going to do something about health and safety.”


the agreed codes of practice that will set out what needs to happen in workplaces, underpinning the high-level principles in the legis-lation. “That’s going to be a big challenge for us, because there are so many gaps that exist at the moment … There is a huge tsunami of regulations and code of practice development that’s going to be underway, and that needs to be developed in a tripar-tite process.” Unions will also be watching carefully to make sure that staff health and safety repre-sentatives, a key part of the new system, are properly elected by their co-workers, listened to in their workplace, and supported by WorkSafe NZ inspectors.

Measuring successOne final question for WorkSafe NZ concerns how it will meas-ure its success. The temptation

will be to focus on outputs such as the number of visits that inspec-tors make. But these are not the same as outcomes – and too strong a focus on outputs could easily prove a distraction. Even the number of prosecutions is not a good measurement, Felicity Lamm says. “If you are judged by the level of prosecutions that you take, it means you are a failure as a department. The [real] notion of compliance is that fewer prosecu-tions … means people are getting the message.” Podger acknowl-edges that this is “one of the major difficulties in the whole area”. The best measurement, he says, will be the most basic: how many people are being killed and injured. The problem is that it’s hard to see short-term improvements in these areas – especially in occupational health. So WorkSafe NZ must simply hope that it will see quick

improvements. “We must hope that we will,” he says.

But even measuring those improvements is far from straight-forward. The independent task-force’s report said its members were “struck by how little knowl-edge there is on how workplace health and safety headline numbers are derived and how unreliable they are”. Lamm agrees that much better data collection is needed, starting with a “robust statistical database” with consistent catego-ries for different kinds of inci-dents – something currently lack-ing. That will be a challenge, however, given the level of acci-dent underreporting, since workers in precarious positions – includ-ing migrant workers and people on 90-day probationary periods – are unlikely to report problems. “Up here in Auckland, so many people employed are under the radar, are

employed illegally. The amount of underreporting in Auckland is extremely high.” That, for Lamm, raises the question: “How can you determine success, when the reporting system is so deeply flawed?”

There is also disagreement on the question of how good the existing ACC data are. Podger, while acknowledging the need to improve data sources more gener-ally, says ACC’s data are “a particu-larly rich source … a priority will be for ACC and ourselves to see if we can get more out of their data”. Lamm, in contrast, says the system needs “a far more sophisticated data collection process than ACC has been able to provide”. But she does agree that Podger’s focus on the most basic measures is prob-ably the right one. “To be fair,” she says, with grim humour, “it’s very hard to hide dead bodies.”


© F

ei S

un |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

A business reorganisation at the Ministry of Justice began with the customer in mind and involved a culture change – supported by technology. MARGARET McLACHLAN talks with Ministry of Justice General Manager Bryre Patchell about the process of transforming the collec-tions operating model.

Up until 2010, the amount of fines owed by New Zealanders was ballooning and fines were not working effectively as a sanction.

Collection systems were paper-based, anti-quated and inflexible. As Bryre Patchell, General Manager Collections, explains, collec-tions staff were in 28 courthouse sites around New Zealand, each working to their own priorities.

“We took a step back, did a current state assessment and carefully considered what sort of business we needed to be in order to be successful. I think one of the biggest mistakes organisations make is to choose technology too early. The technology then drives how the busi-ness functions, instead of deciding how you want the business to operate and then choosing technology to help deliver that.”

The goal was to enable faster collection of fines at lower cost and deliver a better service to every person who relies on the collections system.

Begin with the customer in mindPatchell and his team began with the customer in mind and considered how to design a good experience for them.

Customers who owed fines were segmented into groups based on their willingness and abil-ity to pay and their attitude towards compli-ance, for example, those who accept the fine and deal with it; those who resent the fine and

don’t prioritise it; and some who need to have a discussion with collections staff before the issue can be resolved.

Implemented in October 2011, the new operating model, which was the joint winner of the Treasury Award for Improved Public Value through Business Transformation in the 2013 IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards, makes it as easy as possible for people to pay their fines by providing clear instruc-tions about what to do and offering online and phone payment methods.

For example, automated data matching with the Ministry of Social Development and Inland Revenue was introduced to help locate people who owe fines and their income source so they can be contacted or, if necessary, over-due money can be deducted from their earn-ings. People can now pay bailiffs directly via mobile EFTPOS (introduced in October 2012); and those who want to dispute their fine can send an email and typically get an answer within 24 hours. The old way involved visiting a court, filling out wordy forms and waiting for up to four weeks for an answer. By introducing easy self-help ways to pay, collec-tions staff are able to focus their efforts on those who don’t want to pay and are deliber-ately avoiding doing so.

Patchell says taking a customer-centric view of the business took some adjusting.

“We needed to re-introduce our people to our customers. Many of our people had been trained to think of those who owed fines as ‘defendants’ or ‘offenders’ and that many of them were ‘recidivist offenders’. In reality, over 60 per cent of the 441,000 people who have fines owe less than $500 each and over 76 per

cent owe less than $1000 each. Sure, many are ‘reluctant customers’, but we are able to make it easier for them to pay, deliver a better customer experience, and are more able to give attention to the truly non-compliant.”

The business drives the technologyPatchell describes the business transformation process that took place. “We decided on our desired future business state and the business capabilities we wanted in that future – a better customer experience, one national work queue that is automatically prioritised based on our business rules, work automatically routed to the first available staff member, and real-time business activity monitoring. Only when we had that view of our business did we go to the market to see what technology solutions best met those business capabilities.”

The technology to help implement the new business model is intelligent work distribution (iWD). Patchell says iWD operates in a way that is similar to how calls are allocated to staff in a call centre. The model prioritises tasks and matches them to the staff who have the appro-priate capabilities and are available.

Formerly, each task had lots of “finger-prints” on it before staff got it to action. Managers had complicated processes for decid-ing priorities and their own views about who was best to do the work, and staff each had a

The reluctant customer – transforming the collections operating model

The goal was to enable faster collection of fines at lower cost and deliver a better service to every person who relies on the collections system.


case-load of work and often felt overburdened.Now the work goes to the staff member

who’s available. Good recording disciplines mean the next person who handles a particu-lar customer’s case has the history in front of them. The real-time business activity moni-toring ensures managers have visibility as to the availability of their staff. In addition, a refreshed quality measuring tool is helping to drive up the overall quality of the operation.

With the transition, managers have been freed from many of the administrative tasks, including allocating cases and reporting on what they had achieved. In response, the management structure has shifted from five to three layers and the number of managers has dropped from 56 to 24 managing 500 staff.

Patchell says he went to “the market” for the four senior service-delivery managers, intro-ducing new people with relevant experience. They all understand that they are managers delivering a customer-centric service.

Proving groundsThe results since the transition have been impressive:• Collections debt has decreased from

$807 million in 2008/09 to $557.17 million (as at September 2013).

• The percentage of overdue fines has reduced from 58 per cent in 2008/09 to 42.5 per cent ($236.71 million) by September 2013.

• Operating costs have dropped by $2 million a year.

• The time it takes to process applications for disputing a fine has been cut from up to one month to two to three days.

• The collection of fines via mobile EFTPOS has increased 250 per cent more per month since the system was introduced.

• Perceived service quality, as measured by the Kiwis Count Survey, has increased from 54 per cent in 2007 to 63 per cent.

Patchell says for some staff the transition has been challenging. “The level of choice staff have over what work they do is different, there is less case ownership, and there is a clear focus on staff availability and achieving qual-ity outputs.”

But for many staff, particularly in the main population centres, the transition has meant a more equitable balancing of the workload. In addition, real-time monitoring of staff perfor-mance has increased productivity – all staff can see how they are performing relative to their

co-workers and what is being achieved nation-ally. The result from these changes is that the quality of collections service has improved substantially – these days positive feedback from typically reluctant customers is a regular occurrence.

On the horizonBecause the transformation has instituted a nationwide approach, where staff are located is no longer as critical. In fact, the Ministry of Justice is now testing a working-from-home pilot for collections staff: 23 people from across the country are trialling working from home for seven months.

“Because we can get work to our people anywhere, we want to really understand what this means for staff and managers, if they can achieve the same results or better with the convenience of being able to undertake their role from home,” Patchell says. “There have been some successes in business by working this way so piloting a small group and exploit-ing the capabilities we have both technologi-cally and from a culture perspective is a worth-while exercise.

“This could be a great opportunity for the public sector. The government could leverage from its own high-speed broadband and reduce costs.”

Patchell says the way the collections model has transformed the operation, and the use of iWD could be applied across many public sector organisations.

“What we have done here is not unique to a debt collection operation. In government, there will always be more work than there are

people to do it, and you have to prioritise and allow skilled workers to do their job in the most efficient way. For us, it’s been a process of evolution; when I think about where we are now to where we came from, there’s a signifi-cant difference.

“We introduced fundamental changes to the way we work and interact with our custom-ers. We have answered the Government’s call to provide smarter, better public services for lower cost. By focusing the work of our staff, and by focusing on our most reluctant customers, we can provide services to New Zealanders at a lower cost, while making it easier for them to interact with us.”

About the awardThe Treasury Award for Excellence in Improving Public Value through Business Transformation recognises the significant fiscal challenges that the Government faces and seeks to acknowledge some of the people who have responded to “smarter, better public services for less”. The best of these organisations or individual projects will have thought creatively about different ways of delivering services or carrying out their busi-ness. By challenging the accepted or “tried and tested” methods they will have transformed some aspect of their business to deliver better services to New Zealanders at a significantly lower cost.

Bryre Patchell and Karen Walfisch of the Ministry of Justice accept the Treasury Award for Improved Public Value through Business Transformation.


Daring to be different, along with an enabling and culturally oriented approach, have been the main drivers leading to the Bay of Plenty District Health Board’s Māori health initiative, Toi Ora, winner of this year’s IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Award for Crown-Māori Relationships. KATHY OMBLER learns more about the initiative which has led to significant improvement in Māori health in the Bay of Plenty.

Toi ora, optimum health and well-being for Māori, has been a stra-tegic priority for the Bay of Plenty District Health Board since the inception of DHBs in 2001. The BOPDHB has as its vision the creation and maintenance of “healthy, thriving communities”,

explains Chief Executive Officer Phil Cammish.“While this vision can be quantitatively measured, the vision’s more

important dimensions are qualitative. As a DHB, we have adopted a culturally based approach to the initiatives we take, to move our commu-nities into this healthy and thriving state.

“For our Māori population, spread across the whole Bay of Plenty and encompassed by 18 iwi, this permissive, enabling and culturally oriented approach has seen a more ready acceptance of the health messages and our input into the well-being of their communities.”

Critical to the success of the Toi Ora programme has been an enabling

Improving health and combating inequality in the Bay of Plenty – Toi Ora

“The rūnanga’s goal is to improve the well-being of Māori. We believe to achieve toi ora for BOP Māori we must reduce health inequalities between Māori and non-Māori and through our initiatives we are starting to see the fruits of our efforts, ‘Ka Puawai nga Hua’.”– Rūnanga Chair Punohu McCausland

structure and the establishment of the DHB Māori Health Planning and Funding Unit. Janet McLean, the unit’s General Manager, has direct accountability and respon-sibility for all Māori health fund-ing and contracts and works with a dedicated Māori Health Planning and Funding Team.

A number of factors have driven Toi Ora, says McLean. “We have the highest number of iwi and the highest number of Māori provid-ers compared with any other DHB. Māori represent 25 per cent of our population, the national average is 15 per cent, and there are a number of health-related inequalities between Māori and non-Māori, so there are some compelling drivers.

“Today’s success has been a long time in the making, and involved three key phases,” she says.

Phase One: Tino rangatiratanga – Māori will achieve toi ora“The first phase was establish-ing meaningful partnerships with all 18 iwi, then building a strong working relationship between Māori Health Rūnanga represent-atives and the DHB to develop

a joint strategy. Underpinning this was adopting Māori kaupapa through He Pou Oranga our ‘Tangata Whenua Determinants of Health Framework’ developed by the rūnanga, Māori leadership, tools and approaches to drive the change.”

In hindsight, McLean believes that was key. “It’s easy to take that relationship for granted. I hear stories of how other DHBs strug-gle with iwi partnerships. What has been really helpful has been estab-lishing a Māori Health Rūnanga to represent all 18 iwi. The rūnanga provides strategic advice to the BOPDHB on issues that impact on BOP iwi and Māori communi-ties. For that, I give credit to our Rūnanga Chairperson, Punohu McCausland, and also the 18 dele-gates representing the 18 iwi.

“We have spent a lot of time in the first three years building the capacity and capability of the rūnanga and that was time well invested.”

This work included supporting a number of rūnanga-led initia-tives, such as the development of the He Pou Oranga Framework, He Ritenga (a cultural audit tool), and iwi health plans.

Members of the Toi Ora team accept the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Award for Crown-Māori Relationships. From left to right: Dr George Gray, Public Health Physician, Māori Health Planning and Funding; Helen Mason, Acting Chief Operating Officer, BOPDHB; Janet McLean, General Manager, Māori Health Planning and Funding, BOPDHB; Michelle Hippolite, Chief Executive, Te Puni Kōkiri (award sponsor); Cynthia Turuwhenua, Project Manager, Māori Health Planning and Funding, BOPDHB.

© M

ike7

7777

77 |

Dre

amst

ime.

com


Topics include:

-> Public Sector-> Leadership Development-> Management-> Business Improvement

-> Communication and Engagement-> Finance, Accounting and Economics-> Māori Language, Society and Culture -> Marketing

Victoria Professional and Executive DevelopmentHigh quality professional and executive development courses to enhance the capability of your organisation.

We also deliver in-house courses, and can customise existing courses or design new programmes to suit your requirements.

For course dates, further information and to enrol visit www.victoria.ac.nz/profdev or call us on 04 463 6556.

Our 2014 short course catalogue is out now. Take advantage of our end of year discount. Book your 2014 courses before the end of 2013 and receive 15% off.

McLean says this approach included ensuring Māori are involved at all decision-making levels within the DHB.

“Ensuring appropriate structures to facilitate effective Māori leadership at board and governance level with the Māori Health Rūnanga, at execu-tive and operational levels with the Māori Health Planning and Funding Unit, and within the hospital itself was essential. Establishing Regional Māori Health Services and kaupapa Māori services for good cultural advice and practice at a hospital and provider level was also important.”

Rūnanga Chair Punohu McCausland says the approach has been a success. “The rūnanga’s goal is to improve the well-being of Māori. We believe to achieve toi ora for BOP Māori we must reduce health inequali-ties between Māori and non-Māori and through our initiatives we are starting to see the fruits of our efforts, ‘Ka Puawai nga Hua’.”

Phase Two: He ranga hua hauora – Building the capacity and capability of Māori providers and Māori communities“The BOPDHB is proud of the fact we are the highest DHB investor of Māori non-governmental organisation providers in the country,” contin-ues McLean. “This involved six years of service development, identify-ing gaps and needs, designing services to address them and, in particu-lar, building the capacity and capability of the Māori community – which was achieved by contracting a number of iwi and Māori community-

Building successKey to Toi Ora’s success are four main factors:• A Māori Health Rūnanga, bringing together all 18 iwi in

the Bay of Plenty (the highest number of iwi in any DHB), was established to work with the BOPDHB in developing a joint strategy towards Toi Ora – optimum health and well-being for Māori within the Bay of Plenty.

• The Māori Health Planning and Funding Unit was established to undertake the planning and funding of Māori health services within the BOPDHB, including contracting, monitoring and evaluation of those services and to contribute to the reduction of health inequalities for Māori and to work towards the achievement of Toi Ora. This unit is the only one of its kind in the country.

• The Māori Health Plan monitoring framework was developed to ensure the DHB delivers services that increase Māori capacity and capability, assess (and increase) the level of Māori involvement and participation and improve the health status of Māori. This provides essential feedback, and has been adopted by other DHBs throughout the country.

• He Pou Oranga Tangata Whenua is a framework developed by the DHB in partnership with the Māori Health Rūnanga to ensure traditional tangata whenua values, knowledge and institutions for all Bay of Plenty iwi are recognised as key indicators of Toi Ora.

Pictured left: Māori Health Planning and Funding Unit General Manager Janet McLean and Rūnanga Chair Punohu McCausland.

>


© M

otor

olka

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m

Immunisation and monitoring successIn 2009, 54 per cent of Māori two-year-olds in Bay of Plenty were immunised, compared with 63 per cent non-Māori. In 2012, the Māori percentage had risen to 91 per cent. This means 500 more Māori children have been immunised, and, importantly this has closed the inequality gap, says Māori Health Planning and Funding General Manager Janet McLean.

“The target for two-year-old child immunisation is 95 per cent. This high level is required to stop outbreaks of disease. We are all working in partnership to achieve this important goal so that all our children are protected through ‘herd immunity’.”

based services. This approach was consistent with one of our priori-ties to invest more in primary and community-based services.”

Phase Three: Tuituinga pou hauora – Consolidation, evaluation and mainstream responsiveness“Having spent the time and energy we needed to feel confident we were getting return for our invest-ment; the third critical stage has been a strong focus on evalua-tion and ensuring our funding was addressing the needs of the community,” says McLean.

“We have established a Māori Health Plan monitoring frame-work that has been so successful it has been adopted by other DHBs nationally.

“This means all DHBs now monitor Māori health plans consistently across the country, using our framework. We can compare apples with apples. Also, it presents a great opportunity to facilitate best practice. For exam-ple, we identify who is the best performing DHB for a particu-lar Māori health priority and then learn from their experience, what worked well, and conversely what didn’t.”

This effective monitoring has also provided valuable feedback to the sector, adds McLean. “Having a sense of satisfaction that what you are doing is making a differ-ence, having good data that tells you, for example, that in three years our DHB has closed the

disparity gap for immunisation of two-year-olds, is really affirming.

“Underestimating the impor-tance of feedback was an early lesson for Toi Ora. By design-ing robust monitoring processes we found the sector gained a lot of satisfaction with the ability to monitor themselves and see the positive impact of their efforts.”

Challenges and lessonsGetting buy-in has also been a challenge, she adds. “Often Māori initiatives can be seen as separa-tism. Toi Ora was in fact about working closely with the sector as a whole and emphasising how reduc-ing inequalities for Māori is good for the whole population.”

McLean talks about the propor-tionate universalism approach where, by focusing solely on the most disadvantaged, we will not reduce health inequalities. Rather, actions need to be on a scale and intensity proportionate to the level of need.

“For example, in the case of immunisation, the goal is that all two-year-old children are fully immunised. The majority of chil-dren will be immunised by their general practice staff, others will be immunised in the hospital envi-ronment. However, some children and families may need additional support or targeted interventions such as outreach immunisation for the goal to be realised.

“Another challenge – through-out the significant period of invest-ment and building capability in the Māori sector – was ensuring

About the award sponsorTe Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, is the Crown’s principal adviser on Crown-Māori relationships. They also guide Māori public policy by advising the Government on policy affecting Māori well-being and development. Each Crown-Māori relationship is unique, and should recognise the complexity and diversity of the parties to the relationship. The best of these relationships provide the conduit through which Māori can contribute to policy and planning processes in the areas that affect them, and also ensure that government can meet its own objectives and outcomes. Te Puni Kōkiri means a group moving forward together. As the name implies, Te Puni Kōkiri seeks to harness the collective talents of Māori to produce a stronger New Zealand.

Māori were not operating in isolation but connected and working closely with general practitioners, community nurses and local pharmacies.

“It is also essential to remember that in a Māori community a sense of autonomy, self-determination and self-management is very important.”

Looking aheadThe Toi Ora team is not resting on its laurels, says McLean. “Now that we are confident in the systems and processes, we want to accelerate the rates of improvement.

“At the moment, a number of our Māori health priorities are trend-ing in the right direction, but we want to close that inequality gap more quickly. For example, the national cervical screening target is 80 per cent. For non-Māori in the Bay of Plenty it is currently tracking at 84 per cent compared with 63 per cent for Māori. We have been trending towards a four per cent improvement over the past two years. We want to acceler-ate that.”

McLean also talks about placing more emphasis on the Whānau Ora approach and working across agencies to bring about change.

“Current priorities include rheumatic fever, respiratory conditions and skin infections and some of these concerns really lie in the housing area, in terms of poor housing conditions including lack of insulation. We need to ask, how can the health sector work more closely with other agencies in the community?

“It’s all about being prepared to do things differently and taking a risk.”CEO Phil Cammish agrees. “The IPANZ award is recognition that

sometimes thinking outside the square can yield gains that may not be available by sticking to the tried and true.”


Get ready for the revolu-tion as Māori and Pasifika kids excel at learning outside the classroom. A look at the Manaiakalani programme.

Being spellbound at 58 takes some doing. These kids did it for me though. Young, energetic, Māori and Pasifika all, they caught my attention like I

haven’t been entranced for years. They were just so very clever, 10- and 11-year-olds with the panache and confidence of pros. Storytellers all, working without notes, using audiovisual aids without missing a beat. I had seen a perfor-mance for sure, but these kids had expressed an inner surety about their competence.

This was ‘pinch myself ’ time in Point England, Auckland. I was witnessing a digital revolution. The kids were taking learning out of the classrooms and the impact was profound. School was being re-tooled before my eyes as they showed me what self-managed learning looks like in the 21st century.

Ask these primary school kids to describe what they are doing today that might be differ-ent to the way they were being taught before and they will give you blank stares. They have only known a digital world where they learn, create and share.

The Manaiakalani programme requires all kids to learn the essentials of reading, writ-ing and numeracy. These kids create their own content from this learning as digital learning objects and then share this content online. All this is done via 1:1 netbooks within a Tamaki Learning Network that provides ultrafast broadband to the schools.

Being an online learner opens these kids to the vast world of knowledge and encourages at an early age a discipline of self-management in this learning. It also provides them with terrific

feedback on their work. What is developing rapidly here in one of

the poorest urban environments in Auckland (Decile 1A schools) is outstanding digital e-learning competency. Tamaki kids are shifting from being academic strugglers to being leaders on the edge of a digital e-learning wave.

These kids are bucking the trend, becom-ing 21st century digital citizens in an environ-ment where equity issues for low-income New Zealanders have been getting worse in the last two decades. These kids are popping this nega-tive paradigm. They will be earners and content creators, designers and builders of ideas. They will be adults with aspirations. They are on a different voyage and their parents are beginning to see this to be true and are investing in them.

Pause for a moment to consider that the average annual adult income in this area is $19,000. Not much, eh? Of the more than 2000 children signed up for 1:1 netbooks in the classroom hardly a household in Tamaki has declined to invest in their children the $40 deposit required and the $15 per month ongoing netbook charge for three years. Every month 83 to 87 per cent of parents make that payment.

This parental investment has triggered a confident response from commercial, govern-ment and philanthropic agencies to help build the infrastructure necessary to ensure digital citizenship for these kids. Support to date is about $4 million and the parents have contrib-uted 30 per cent of this.

Tamaki College, the only secondary school in the Manaiakalani programme, went fully digital last year, the first state school to manage this change. Their NCEA level 2 results went from pass-rates of 25 to 52 per cent in their first year of full digital immersion. There are lots of reasons for this, but digital immersion was a key contributor. Way more kids from Māori and Pasifika households at the college

had a great reason to celebrate.Over half a million dollars pays for research

with the Woolf Fisher Research Centre based at the University of Auckland. They are the inde-pendent ‘truth teller’ on educational outcomes. We want them to test the evidence of the learn-ing improvement made by these kids in their reading, writing and maths. In some cases this improvement is at multiples of the national expected average progress. So far it is a green flag. Progress is measurable and authentic.

At least once a week Point England School hosts visitors to the Manaiakalani cluster. These visitors get the kind of induction that I got on that first day. They are leaders of business and industry, they are principals and lead teachers from around the country, they are visitors from overseas universities, Google and telecommuni-cations companies and they are chief executives from major government departments.

I have yet to meet a single one of these visi-tors who walks out of this experience with previous views unchallenged. A body of commercial, educational and government influ-ence brokers now understands the potential of digital e-learning as a shapeshifter in expecta-tions for our future Māori and Pasifika work-force. Not only is it possible, it is happening in Tamaki today.

Patrick Snedden serves as a Chief Crown Negotiator in Treaty Settlements for the Far North and in the Hawke’s Bay. He is the Executive Chair of Manaiakalani Education Trust and has chaired numerous boards, including Housing New Zealand and Auckland District Health Board. In September, he presented “Confounding expectations – creating digital citizenship for low-income communities” at the Public Sector Conference. A PowerPoint of that presentation is available at www.thepublicsectorconference.org.nz. A variation of this article first appeared in Grumpy Old Men by Paul Little, published by Paul Little Books, 2013.

The revolution is coming!By Patrick Snedden Ph

oto:

Pt E

ngla

nd s

choo

l.


Jeremy Palmer, LINZ Data Service Customer Manager and winner of the new professional category in this year’s IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards, recently spoke to CARL BILLINGTON about open govern-ment and the LINZ Data Service – the first open government data service in New Zealand.

What have you aimed to do with the LINZ Data Service? We are trying to make a difference in making useful government information easily available and usable. I believe LINZ Data Service sets the bench-mark for how government organisations should be approaching the release of public data for re-use, innovation and enterprise. We have seen some great progress already, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. The opportunities are just immense.

Essentially, we have introduced an entirely new approach to service delivery that aims to provide any interested party with open access to LINZ datasets to use and share as they wish.

How much of the project’s success was about overcoming the technical challenges and how much was about working through the people side of things?Delivering such a creative, innovative service required a transformation across our whole business – in our operations, service delivery, systems and technology. This transformation required great leader-ship and culture change at multiple levels. The upfront commitment and passion across the organisation to make the service a success was critical to making an outstanding public service.

The types of challenges we have over-come have varied throughout the devel-opment of the service. When the original case was developed a lot of strong leader-ship and socialisation across the organisa-tion was required.

Once we had the approval to develop the service, by necessity we focused on making sure we were going to get it over the line from a technology and

business process perspective. At that point, we would have been spending 80 per cent of our time making sure the service was going to be able to meet the delivery outcomes that were expected. Fortunately, we had so many people on board within LINZ that we were able to just focus on getting things up and running – having such strong support was a huge advantage.

After the launch of the service, we became much more outward facing and concentrated on promoting the service, interacting with customers, and listening to their feedback.

The early indications and feedback have been extremely positive. Taking a customer-centric approach has been criti-cal and I am excited about the prospect of seeing that more and more across govern-ment in the future.

What are some of the key things that enabled success? First and foremost, one of the critical keys to our success was having the great leadership and vision at LINZ to make this service happen. In particular, Jan Pierce, our General Manager of Customer Services, has been a real enabler in setting the environment that allowed us to succeed.

Jan has been instrumental in helping shift LINZ from a culture that was quite

risk averse to one in which our custom-ers determine what needs to be done.

The selection of Koordinates as our technology provider is also a defining factor in the success of the service. Their innovation and technical abili-ties are a key reason we are seeing so much success with customers and gaining recognition across the public sector.

Engaging our technology provider in itself represented a very differ-ent managerial approach within the government sector. As we began to look for the right technology partner to help bring our service to the public, Koordinates was identified as provid-ing services that were what we wanted. However, they were a fairly recent start-up company at that stage. The

more typical approach across the public sector would have been to find a more established player with a long history of experience working with government – a ‘safer’ bet, so to speak.

By being considered in our decisions – as opposed to risk averse – we were able to base our decision on what was right for the project and so much of the success we see today is a direct result of that decision.

Being overly risk averse is one of the challenges identified as part of the drive towards Better Public Services. How did you manage that issue? With the changes that are coming in across the public sector and state services, we are heading into new territory. The thinking, habits, and approaches we have established over the past decades will not be sufficient in the world that is emerging. We have to chart a new course together and that is often going to mean we need to work with new players in the market.

The Declaration for Open and Transparent Government Data and Information and the drive for Better Public Services both set a clear direction for government agencies to be more open and agile, and to explore new approaches – specifically those using advances in technology.

Open book – a conversation with Jeremy Palmer

Associate Professor Bill Ryan presents Jeremy Palmer with his award at the IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards.


For us, in addition to finding the right technology partner, we also took a differ-ent approach in thinking about our customers. Government agencies are typi-cally perceived as being very inward look-ing and building processes and policies to suit their own back-office functions. The core philosophy we adopted here was that we wanted to make something that offered true value for our customers – that meant we needed to treat their needs as our highest priority.

Across the public sector, customers often tell us they experience government departments as places that put up a lot of walls between themselves and their customers.

We adopted an entirely different approach and sought to have ‘open doors’. This included simple things like making my direct phone and email contacts available to people at all levels of an organisation who might need a bit more support with using the service or making it available to their customers and stakeholders. We made sure we treated these people as our utmost priority and, in turn, that built an enormous degree of credibility and trust.

Where do you see things going from here? The real challenge now lies in ensuring we can help embed this shift in philosophy beyond just LINZ. We are currently pilot-ing a project to share our data service with the Ministry for the Environment so that they can launch their service off the back of ours.

This is very much in line with the Government ICT Strategy which encour-ages government agencies to collaborate behind the scenes to connect processes and information together to provide much more accessible, customer-centred services. It’s about opening up and releas-ing high-value data and using the assets and resources across agencies to make a shared services approach actually work. We are having conversations with a number of other agencies as well at the moment.

As government agencies, it’s up to us to inspire confidence for the future. There are so many opportunities in front of us and we need to show that we are credi-ble, that we are listening to our customers, and that we have the capability to imple-ment the changes we all agree we need.

Key Features•Adesignthatfacilitatesupto3,700m2ofoffice,withnaturallighttoallfoursidesandplentifulcarparkingfortenants•Atargeted4to5-stargreenrating,withafocustoincorporateecologicallysoundsustainabilityfeaturesintofitout,constructionandoperationalaspectsofthebuilding•Neighbourswhohavebankedonbeingthere–literally!WestpacBankandASBbothhaveasubstantialpresenceaswellasthreemedicaltenancies.Close-byareWestfieldAlbanyandtheCorinthianRetailCentre–settobethelocality’scentralmeetingplace,providingconvenienceamenitiesincludingcafesandoutdoordining•Highlyvisiblefromthemotorwaydrivingnorthandveryaccessible•AsoughtafterlocationthatbenefitsfromgoodpublictransportinfrastructureavailabletoallpartsoftheNorthShoreandAucklandCity•Aprovengrowthareafordevelopmentacrossallsectorsofthepropertymarketandanaffordablelocation•Signagerightsavailableofferinghugeexposureforanybusiness.

New DNZ Property Fund Office Development – For Lease

FOR LEASE – Enquire todaywww.bayleys.co.nz/376415DevereuxHowe-SmithRealtyLtd,BayleysLicensedundertheREAAct2008

Tonia RobertsonM 021619200or094890964E [email protected]

39 Corinthian Drive, Albany

You can find more information about the LINZ Data Service online at www.linz.govt.nz/about-linz/linz-data-service or access the service directly through www.data.linz.govt.nz.

About the New Professional of the Year Award sponsorVictoria University of Wellington’s School of Government is the only such school in New Zealand. Our aim is to build public sector capability through our teaching programmes, improve public sector governance through research into public management and administration, and contribute to scholarship in important areas of public management and policy. Our courses are designed to help public servants make a difference. We work collaboratively and across disciplines, with academics in New Zealand and internationally, and with regional and local government. All of this helps us understand and support, as well as challenge the public sector.

“The upfront commitment and passion across the organisation to make the service a success was critical to making an outstanding public service.”

http://www.linz.govt.nz/about-linz/linz-data-service

http://www.linz.govt.nz/about-linz/linz-data-service

http://www.data.linz.govt.nz


Professor Brad Jackson is keen to dispel longstanding and unhelpful myths about leadership he explains to ROSE NORTHCOTT. In his role as Co-Director of the New Zealand Leadership Institute at The University of Auckland Business School for almost eight years, the first misconception Jackson wants to challenge is that leaders in the public sector and private sector are markedly different.

While the differences are often emphasised, the work we do with general managers – the engine rooms of leadership in organisa-tions – across both sectors shows they are grappling with similar challenges relating to increased complexity, uncertainty and continuous change.”

Jackson says an important part of his role is to question conven-tional wisdom based on his reading and his encounters with leadership across the country.

“There is obviously a key differ-ence in the way organisations are governed in the public and private sectors, but what I’m seeing across both currently is a tremendous preoccupation with risk and how to manage uncertainty. All manag-ers are craving leadership; they are

looking for the tough decisions to be made and to be guided by a compelling sense of enduring purpose.”

Unfortunately, when the chips are down in an organisation, Jackson says there is a tendency for leaders to revert to a management mind-set, focusing on providing the right answer, operational tasks, and minimising risk. Whereas a leadership mind-set demands a calm head and the determination to look forward.

“It’s essentially about asking questions about direction and purpose and identity and the cour-age to challenge the status quo.

“What you need are individu-als who understand and are will-ing to contribute to good leader-ship, good management and good governance processes. Everyone in an organisation should see them-selves as collectively contribut-ing to each process. People at the bottom of an organisation may not see themselves as being active play-ers in governance, but they should recognise why it is important to them and how they can indirectly shape this.

“When most people think about leadership they focus on the head of an organisation. But it’s not just the chief executive – and most CEOs get that more than anyone.

People throughout an organisation all need to engage with leadership. That’s part of why we emphasise the process, not the role. The aim is to create dynamic progressive processes where an organisation is moving forward with a clear sense of shared purpose.”

Taking on another leadership myth, Jackson notes that the non-governmental organisation sector rather than the public and private sectors generally creates more opportunities for leadership.

“NGOs are compelled to create something out of fundamentally nothing by persuading people they are key stakeholders in their organ-isation when they do not readily recognise this.”

“When you work in an envi-ronment like that it creates leader-ship. It’s clear where accountabil-ity ultimately resides, but you have got clusters of people throughout the organisation feeling responsible for what’s going to happen, taking ownership as well as the initiative – you have then got a powerful basis for leadership.”

Jackson says people can learn for themselves how to be a good leader, adding they could be the most eloquent, most intelligent person with a model psycho-logical profile, but if they don’t have a clear sense of purpose and

aren’t sure about what they want to change and why, then they shouldn’t take on a leadership role.

He believes it is more difficult to be a leader today than in the past.

“Some people suggest we don’t have leaders any more whereas we used to. It could be that we are more fickle consumers of leader-ship than before. One thing we may have lost is a sense of our own role in creating leadership. We have become more critical and are impatient and have a low tolerance of our leaders. We place so much responsibility on a particular leader without thinking what our contri-bution might or should be.”

There is a tendency for passive aggression, explains Jackson, a notion of not directly engaging with those in a leadership role, an attitude of ‘they have to try and figure it out’.

“The media plays a role. They don’t do a lot to develop a fuller appreciation of leadership and how difficult it is to create and sustain. I try and encourage people to engage directly with leaders, to shape the kind of leadership they want to see created. I see that as a responsibil-ity we all have.

“In my new role [as the new Head of the School of Government at Victoria University of

– getting to the truth

‘‘©

Dig

itals

torm

cine

ma

| D

ream

stim

e.co

m


Jackson would like to see a lot more movement of leaders between the public, private and NGO sectors within New Zealand, saying each has a lot to offer in terms of leadership development. It would also promote a better understanding of what each sector contributes and break down unnecessary barriers and stereotyping.

Wellington], I will be a professor of public and community leadership. That signals the importance of getting the public and community sectors more productively engaged to tackle the tough wicked problems that are being faced not just in New Zealand, but around the world.”

Jackson would like to see a lot more movement of leaders between the public, private and NGO sectors within New Zealand, saying each has a lot to offer in terms of leadership development. It would also promote a better understanding of what each sector contributes and break down unnecessary barriers and stereotyping.

He says his role is to be both critical and optimistic, and he is. “I think New Zealand is becoming increasingly sophisticated in terms of thinking about leadership and what it wants to achieve. I have

written about New Zealand’s potential to be a testing ground for new, progressive leadership practices that can tackle the tough issues. I think there is a special opportunity in this country to come together, to connect and to generate a sustained longer-term focus on these issues.”

He sees great motivation across the sectors and great talent, includ-ing the 30-, 40- and 50-year-old leaders he works with, and the 20- year-olds coming out of university who are so sharp and global in their thinking.

“How do we harness that? I don’t think it’s about creating new organisations or revamping exist-ing organisational structures, that consumes far too much unproduc-tive time and energy. It should be more about how do we go about creating a sense of common purpose and sticking to that. That would be powerful.”

Professor Jackson has been the Fletcher Building Education Trust Chair in Leadership and Co-Director of the New Zealand Leadership Institute at The University of Auckland since 2006. He was recently appointed Head of the School of Government at Victoria University of Wellington and will take up his new position on 1 February 2014.


In early October, The New Zealand Initiative and Local Government New Zealand hosted a panel discus-sion on localism. Chaired by LGNZ Chief Executive Malcolm Alexander, the panel included New Zealand Initiative Executive Director Dr Oliver Hartwich, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English, Ambassador of Switzerland Dr Marion Weichelt Krupski, Sunday Star Times Columnist Rod Oram, and President of LGNZ and Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule. Editor SHELLY BISWELL looks at some of the ideas explored by the panellists that evening and takes a closer look at localism in a New Zealand context.

Contrast and compareIn his recent paper, A global perspective on localism, which was launched at the panel discussion,

Dr Oliver Hartwich compares localism in New Zealand to other countries around the world.

Hartwich says that the birthplace of modern civilisation was the city. From the origin of the word politics which has its roots in the ancient Greek word polis, which means ‘city’, to the concept of democracy which is derived from the

Greek words demos, meaning ‘the rule of the people’, and kratos, meaning ‘power’.

“Throughout most of human history, cities were the dominant force of political affairs. From the very first cities of Mesopotamia in the seventh millennium BC, to ancient Athens

and Rome, to the city-states of the Middle Ages, cities drove the development of politi-cal affairs, of culture, of democracy, of finance, of the arts, of education. History was made in and by these cities.”

That system of governance gave way four centuries ago to the nation-state model. “This centralisation has happened at different speeds and to different extents. There are places in which local democracy and municipal auton-omy play greater roles than in others. But with very few exceptions such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Monaco or the Vatican, we are now living in a world in which cities have been rele-gated to a lower tier of government – often a second tier and, in federal systems, a third tier of government,” Hartwich writes.

It’s a situation that Hartwich says is “deplorable” and while it “makes good sense to centralise some aspects of government in modern, industrialised societies, there are significant negative side effects and objections – philosophical and economic – to this central-ising tendency”.

But in many parts of the world, there are signs that things are beginning to change and the political principle of subsidiarity – where a matter should be handled at the least central-ised authority capable of effectively addressing it – is being adopted.

New Zealand is an outlier in terms of devolving centralised power. Whereas local government in most OECD countries fulfils a large variety of roles in public services, it is completely absent in some areas of government in New Zealand.

“Even in the areas in which New Zealand local government contributes more than noth-ing to overall government expenditure – economic affairs, recreation, culture and reli-gion, environmental protection, housing, and community amenities – it still accounts for a share below the OECD average.”

While Hartwich is a proponent of local-ism, he warns that because New Zealand is so entrenched in centralism, as a country we will first need to build structures that support local-ism if we are to be successful.

A central perspectiveDeputy Prime Minister Bill English says New Zealand is “deeply statist” based on how we began as a nation. Although an important exception to this he says are Māori traditions, many of which are much more focused on regional and community sovereignty.

He says localism runs against New Zealand’s deep-seated statist ideology which is part of the reason why it hasn’t made better traction in New Zealand. But from his perspective, stat-ism has peaked. “Technology and social media are changing the nature of the public sector and diffusing how information and services are delivered.”

In addition, he says there is a growing awareness of state failures. “Welfare and state housing being two primary examples of the central government acting as passive, negligent monopolies that treat the most vulnerable in our communities in a high-handed, arrogant manner and have for 70 years. That is the ugly face of statism – little regard for the people and communities in which they live.”

Thinking localism

Mar

k Ro

bert

s@m

ychi

llybi

n.co

.nz


He says there is also the concern that central government often doesn’t know how to deal with communities, particularly communities in deprivation.

“One of the unintended consequences of the 10 Better Public Services results is that this dynamic has shifted. Agencies have been asked to achieve specific things for specific groups of people. This is quite a different approach to being told to spend money to implement a programme – one approach is abstract while the other is concrete.”

English says a localised approach to working on youth issues is currently being tried in six of New Zealand’s small towns. “The programme gives local control of funding for young people. It’s been incredibly energising for local communities, but it can also be really challenging as often local service providers don’t accept the legitimacy of the decision-making process. Where we are finding the greatest success is when local leaders, such as mayors, get involved in the process.”

He says localised initiatives are not new in New Zealand and gives as examples the community-owned health services established in Otago and Southland in the 1990s, but adds there is no great political movement to localism.

“New Zealanders still have a strong belief in the power of the state. That doesn’t mean they are against localism, but they are still scepti-cal of the benefits. My belief, however, is that central government will continue to devolve.” He says there are two things, however, that will

be required: 1) A realisation that the state isn’t the arbiter of everything, a concept that is still politically risky, and 2) A framework that is flexible enough to support localism.

“Based on recent voter turnouts, it’s clear we need to engage people again and highlight that they can be involved in decision-making and change. Localism obviously offers a clear path to ensuring people are heard.”

Does localism breed happiness?Perhaps. Swiss Ambassador Dr Marion Weichelt Krupski began her presentation with the observation that in the recently released UN World Happiness Report, New Zealand ranks 13th – we are a happy people. But when it comes to happiness, the Swiss are even happier, coming in third behind Denmark and Norway.

What does happiness have to do with localism? One of the six indicators used for measuring happiness is the freedom to master one’s life and a second indicator is the real GDP per capita.

In her presentation, she explains that the Swiss model, an especially pronounced model of localism coupled with a system of direct democracy, contributes substantially to make

the Swiss the third happiest nation in the world.

Direct democracy is one of the hallmarks of Switzerland’s political system. In fact, Switzerland is the only country in the world in which citizens have such extensive decision-making power.

“Our former state secretary was a mathematician, so he would say 2408 + 26 = 1: there are 2408 communes [municipalities], plus 26 cantons to equal one Switzerland. Over the past 700 years we have grown from an alliance of three cantons to today’s federal-state. It has been an organic evolution and represents a system that has been built from the bottom up,” Weichelt Krupski says.

“In this system, cantons are sovereign unless specifically stated otherwise in the federal constitution. The default for governance is at the canton level. Only if something can be done more effectively at the federal level will it be elevated to that level, for example foreign relations, national security, and highways. This is reflected in our taxation system as well. The original taxing power lies with the cantons. The confederation may only levy taxes where this is explicitly permitted under the federal constitution. Most taxation occurs at the

"Even in the areas in which New Zealand local government contributes more than nothing to overall government expenditure – economic affairs, recreation, culture and religion, environmental protection, housing, and community amenities – it still accounts for a share below the OECD average."–Dr Oliver Hartwich

Central Park Apartments, Wellington City Council (www.flickr.com/photos/wgtncc/sets/).

Projects like the award-winning Wellington Housing Upgrade show how central government and local government can work together to address community needs and meet national goals. The joint initiative between central government and Wellington City Council is a 20-year project that began in 2008.

>


canton and municipal level.”Cantonal and communal tax autonomy leads to intense

tax competition between the cantons and between the communes. She says that while some worry such a system may promote a race to the bottom in terms of cutting taxes and services that has not been the case in practice. “The system promotes competition, diversity, efficiency, and innovation.”

Weichelt Krupski adds that federalism offers a playground for experimentation and can provide “a true laboratory for policy innovation”. It also diffuses power and enables a better-adapted implementation of federal policies at the cantonal level, protects minorities, and brings citizens closer to the political authorities. “The system encourages citizens to get involved.”

It’s a system that seems to serve Switzerland well. The World Economic Forum has named Switzerland as the most competitive and innovative country in the world for 2012–2013, a position it has held for five years.

“And, it’s the third happiest.”

Maximising local opportunitiesJournalist Rod Oram travels around New Zealand exten-sively for his work and says what he sees is great resilience in our communities. But he cautions that most of our communities are under stress.

“The last five years have been very hard and most communities do not have good economic strategies in place for their long-term survival.”

He notes this is a curious anomaly for such an urbanised nation with 87 per cent of New Zealanders living in towns and cities.

“In that, lies tremendous opportunities for us, urban economies are real power houses. If you go to the far end of that scale, the 40 mega regions in the world account for 18 per cent of the world’s population, but they produce 66 per cent of all economic activity, 85 per cent of patents and inventions, and 83 per cent of all scientists. Urban centres reap ideas not resources.”

So how do we develop the best of both worlds, reaping both the rewards of resources and ideas?

“We need rural and urban communities that thrive on the great shifts of technology, economics, sustainability, and society that are re-shaping the world. But crucially, we need to give a very distinctive New Zealand expression to that through our communities so that they as communi-ties and we as a country stand out and attract the best.”

While Oram believes that localism gives people the power to do that, he warns that localism must not be parochialism. “It must be about every community having the opportunity to maximise its potential so it can play its role in New Zealand’s progress.”

Oram says we need a very different local government system to accomplish this. “We need organisations that are more strategic, more capable, more efficient, and larger so


they can give power and expression to local needs. The best guidance we currently have on this is the Royal Commission’s report on Auckland.”

There are many examples of how the framework put in place in 2010 is benefiting Auckland, Oram says. “For example, in April, Housing Minister Nick Smith barrelled into Auckland saying the solution to Auckland’s housing problem was to throw lots of good farming land and other land into housing. But the Auckland Council had a lot of good analysis done on housing and was able to provide a much more thoughtful and inte-grated approach on how to deal with this issue. When the housing accord was signed some months later, it represented a much more cohesive plan than what was initially proposed.”

Oram says he supports localism because the opportunities and benefits of it are enormous. “But we need to debate and implement this very thoughtfully. If localism is driven only by an obsession for minimalist government it is nothing more than empty ideology and is blind to the real benefits of localism.”

At the crossroadsPresident of LGNZ and Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule says countries with strong local government systems tend to have strong national and local economies. “It’s important to recognise that there are other alternatives to being the most centralised country in the world as Economist magazine has labelled New Zealand.”

But to change, Yule says there are trust, respect, and risk issues that need to be addressed between central and local government.

“The opportunity for New Zealand lies in allowing communities alongside their elected representatives to take greater control of their own destinies. We need better ability to influ-ence local services, even those which we do not run, so providers are more accountable to local people and services are better designed to address local needs.”

Recent research conducted to inform the discussion about local government reform in Hawke’s Bay indicates two things need to be addressed for the region to thrive: 1) A cohesive set of leadership which is currently lacking, and 2) The management of the $880 million of central government funding that comes into the Hawke’s Bay region every year.

“Currently that funding is disorganised, it’s in silos, it’s not tailored to local needs, and it’s managed from Wellington. The findings of the researchers are that if the way govern-ment money is expended could be fundamen-tally turned around we would get far better outcomes.”

He recognises shifting our current model is a risk, but argues that the current system is not working and points to the numerous changes local government has gone through

since 1989. “It seems that not a year goes past that something else isn’t added to the Local Government Act, in fact, my officials tell me the size of the Act has grown by 500 pages.”

At the moment, for example, many of local government’s functions are under review and, at the same time, the Local Government Commission is determining the future struc-ture of councils. “All this, while we are still getting new responsibilities. The controver-sial Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and the recent alcohol rules are two examples of where local government needs to make decisions, decisions I might add that are often consid-ered too difficult to be made centrally.”

He says that local government is at a cross-roads. “Change is occurring at many fronts, but it needs to be more integrated and joined up.”

Yule says local government is committed to working with central government to deliver a national strategy to guide the future of the local government sector. In addition, he is calling for a Royal Commission to investigate the issue.

“It’s about getting the balance right. It not only makes good democratic sense, it makes good economic sense as well.”

View the full presentations at www.nzinitia-tive.org or www.lgnz.co.nz (under our work, our policy decisions). Dr Hartwich’s paper is avail-able to download from the www.nzinitiative.org (under publications).Join in the conversation on localism at LinkedIn IPANZ Group.

http://www.nzinitiative.org


http://www.lgnz.co.nz



POINT OF VIEW

Lessons from Pike RiverBy Nicholas Davidson QC

Drawing on experience as a student working in dangerous occupations, much of the Royal Commission into the Pike River

Coal Mine Tragedy report rung true, but never on such a scale of default, with combination of cause so deadly as in that inherently dangerous workplace.

The response of the legislature, the unions, industry and its participants, has been expert, fast, and necessary. I have observations to make about the reforms in practice, drawn in part from the Royal Commission process, and what I have heard from others in the course of discuss-ing Pike River at many presentations throughout New Zealand.

First, the Royal Commission remarked that mining disasters of the past have not resulted in any long-term “learning”. It has been a surprise to me, talking with health and safety professionals, and at work-places, how little has been known of the cause of earlier disasters whether under-ground mining or otherwise. The human response seems to be to look forward rather than back, marked by genera-tional indifference or ignorance, when the causes of workplace injury and fatal-ity should have been carefully understood and documented.

Secondly, there has been an unusual reluctance to address what expertise is required to ensure workplace safety is managed in an expert way and under constant surveillance. The perspective I hold is that formality around health and safety practice is necessary but deceptive.

For example, at Pike River, the health and safety documentary systems were described as “world class” and those responsible for their development were highly regarded at a professional level. The fact is that they were not used, nor followed through in the way intended. While the cause of this at Pike River has been put down to a culture of production over safety, that does not seem all that is involved. The stories of Pike River workers checking maintenance sheets for under-ground equipment, without any regard for accuracy were repeated many times. Why this happened and why forms were then processed without “judgment” emerges from the Pike River story.

Thirdly, there has been a disparage-ment of the need for board expertise in the industry in question, when addressing health and safety. This does not make any sense to me. The idea of the “generalist” is well understood. The intelligent director who can ask questions, and interpret the answers in a way meaningful to health and safety has been expressed on a number of occasions. Without knowledge of the underground condition and what can go wrong, as on the board at Pike River, any health and safety enquiry seems to be barren.

In addition, recognised “qualifications” may exist on paper, but not exist in prac-tice. Pike River is an example of engage-ment of people with purported expertise, who under the testing environment at Pike River proved totally inadequate. No matter what the effect of the laudable and strong New Zealand legislative response to Pike River the performance of individuals will dominate health and safety performance.

Pike River is an example of people taking responsibility for which they had no skills or experience. Repeatedly we heard stories of men working underground to the point of exhaustion, often contrac-tors who had limited experience of work-ing underground. The ability to maintain high levels of performance in dangerous settings depends on “personal fitness for purpose”, and regulation, even prescrip-tive, will not meet the need for vigilance by and of individuals.

All those at the Royal Commission were struck by the evidence of a senior miner from Yorkshire, who had worked his whole life in mines, who knew of the extreme dangers of Pike River and chose not to return there after a spell overseas, at the behest of his wife. He referred to the “buddy” system, the need for understanding by all involved that every person is important to the safety not just of themselves but of their work colleagues. That sense of obligation to others was sadly lacking at Pike River, and often through complete ignorance of the workplace risks, derived from miners and contractors being so unfamiliar with the inherent dangers.

There are so many warning signs in the workplace, whether those that expose

workers to physical danger or simply stress. The ability not just to look out for those, but to assess them and to address the inhibiting performance factors, such as exhaustion, ill health, personal antagonisms, and bullying, seem to me as important as structures introduced through legislation.

Two learned authors provided material before the Royal Commission suggesting that the workplace culture is hard to meas-ure. The Royal Commission did not agree and nor do I. A well-led workplace, where each person has a sense not just of their entitlement but their obligation, where the spirit of the workplace is maintained by strong leaders, provides an overlay to the multiple reforms now being implemented.

Respect for one another, in every work-place, is the closest I can come to a defi-nition of what is required. Had there been that respect, and at Pike River there was evidence very much to the contrary, then intervention would surely have come at a level which would have prevented this tragedy.

The warnings were stark over two decades as the safety framework in New Zealand mines were dismantled by a combination of legislative and regulatory reform evolving fatally in a company rogue to health and safety requirements. Many experienced people were aware of this, and there were direct warnings. They were ignored.

The attitudinal shift which is required to accompany the legislative reforms must be matched by ingraining the sense of mutual reliance in all workplaces, remem-bering the potentially dire consequence of failure and ensuring a level of education and understanding to reach the necessary standards.

Every now and then a look into the faces of the 29 men who died is salutary. I hope all in the workplace do so and reflect that the same losses occur across multiple workplaces.

Nicholas Davidson is counsel to many of the Pike River families.

Make a date with IPANZ

www.ipanz.org.nz

in

In 2013, IPANZ hosted nearly 50 events. and we are already making plans for 2014.IPANZ events are a great way to learn about emerging issues in the public sector, to develop professionally, and to network with colleagues.

IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector

Excellence Awards – nominations open

20 January

IPANZ annual address by the

Hon Bill English Deputy Prime Minister

20 February

Parliament in Practice

workshops

Expert Series training course

New Professionals’ biennial conference

Auckland network events

Wellington lunchtime and evening lectures

ps dec 13 finalweb

Documents

t i o n n e w z e

n i s t r

j o u r n

n drngai tmatanuipublic

public sector content

authorspublic sector

public management student

management new zealanders