Transformation: The future of public management in New Zealand

Return to full list of Think Pieces

Rose O'Neill

Rose O'Neill is currently completing PhD research on e-government at the School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington. She has worked in the New Zealand public service for 20 years, particularly in the justice and social welfare sectors, and has held policy, management, and project management roles. She was also in the E government Unit in the State Services Commission during its establishment phase where she contributed to early thinking on authentication and shared workspace.

Transformation: The future of public management in New Zealand

The words 'e-government' and 'transformation' are so often used in the same sentence that they have become inextricably linked in the literature on e-government. For example, New Zealand's e-government programme stated goals include "transforming the operation of government by 2010 and people's engagement with government by 2020" (www.e.govt.nz). The language of 'transformation' begs the question of what the nature and extent of change is that is being anticipated. That is, change 'from what, to what'?

It also raises the question of what expectations the use of the concept 'transformation' carries. The term is often used generically, but has two quite different definitions: a substantive alteration in form, shape, appearance and/or function (vb) or a qualitative change that extends to a change in the spatial or temporal relationships of parts of the universe (n) (Collins Dictionary, 1989). While both meanings of the word involve substantial change, only the latter implies radical change in the order of existence.

The question therefore becomes whether the e-government programme in New Zealand is going to result only in a significant change to the 'look and feel' of government operations, or if it is possible that it might also lead to a more substantive and permanent change to the way public management is organised at a systemic level. In other words, if one is to take on board the more radical interpretation of the concept of transformation then the introduction of e-government into the public management agenda can be seen as the key to a second stage of revolutionary reform in this country of a similar order and magnitude to that of the late 1980's reforms. This is a bold perspective that carries with it very high expectations. If this is how the e-government programme should be interpreted it begs the question of what such reform will look like.

The more moderate interpretation of the e-government programme goal for 2010 is that it is a simple statement of fact that the introduction of new technologies by government agencies will alter the existing information management and service delivery practices. This type of instrumental evolution though can hardly be considered 'transformational' in the systemic sense. The introduction of electronic channels (whether they are for service delivery, information management, interaction, or for any other reason) alters the form of interaction between government agencies and the public, but it can be argued that no real transformation of relationship takes place. Providing new channels to carry out the same functions merely provides a new means to do the same thing. Something has certainly altered, but is it transformative?

The 2020 e-government goal on the other hand raises the promise of change of a more fundamental and radical nature. It refers to change in the engagement between people and government. This raises the question of what transformation of socio-political relationships will look like, and what its consequences will be.

The primary relationship that should be at the centre of any consideration of public management is the one that exists between members of the voting public and their elected members of parliament. This is the relationship that is at the heart of the democratic process, and it is through this process that the government of the day is elected and mandated to act on behalf of New Zealanders. Public officials service the government of the day on behalf of the general public. To be effective in doing so they must be alert, and responsive to, the changing relationship between the public and elected representatives.

As modern technologies become more accessible, the amount and types of information available to people and the means by which they use that information to communicate with their political representatives is rapidly changing. Modern politicians are increasingly having to take account of new communications mediums and learn to interact with constituents in new ways using a range of technologies and even new language (e.g. wiki, blogs, podcasts). As a consequence the views of constituents can be, and are being, communicated to members of parliament more quickly, and more clearly. The question of whether these new forms of communication are having any greater effect is however one that yet lacks any empirical data to assess. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that over time there is every likelihood that change of some order in the democratic relationship will occur, and it is imperative that public officials are able to continue to service politicians and the New Zealand public appropriately in this changing environment.

As we stand at the beginning of the twenty-first century serious questions need to be asked about how well the existing public management arrangements enable officials to meet the challenges of a global technological age. Are the existing models of funding allocation, policy making, human resource allocation, and decision-making serving the public and government of New Zealand well? Could it be that the current system of specialist interests (e.g., health, education, justice, environment etc) with its contracted system of accountability for specific outcomes is in fact inhibiting the ability of officials to contribute to and uptake innovations (technological or otherwise) that will facilitate new ways of working and enable a greater level of responsiveness to changes in the relationship between elected representatives and the public?

Imagine a public management system of the future where the contribution of officials to the collective interest (possibly facilitated by collaborative technologies) is as valued as their contribution to specialist outcomes, and this is reflected in organisational operating incentives, accountabilities, processes, and structures. Imagine if resources (money, people and capital) were allocated according to the delivery of sector-based outcomes that reflected the priorities of the public and elected representatives for a stronger economy, sustainable environmental management and improved health, education and employment. Imagine if sector-based governance groups that included Treasury and population interests (e.g., Women’s Affairs; Te Puni Kokiri; Pacific-based agencies) collectively set outcome-based goals and made resource, investment and operational decisions according to an agreed set of principles and priorities for action. Imagine if public officials routinely worked in collaboration with non-government organisations and other service providers to place the interests of the public (as defined by the public themselves) at the centre of the service delivery model and organised themselves to be accountable for the future wealth and health of generations of New Zealanders to come. Imagine if public officials harnessed communication technologies to facilitate and enable public engagement in creating and implementing government policy.

Now that would be transformation. Bring it on!