New Zealand Public Sector reform: Crown- Māori relations

The New Zealand Government has announced its intention to overhaul the public service legislation. Stephen Easton has a good summary in The Mandarin (link here). The reforms involve five broad reforms: a unified public service, employment and workforce changes, leadership, organisational structures, and strengthening the Crown-Maori relationship. This post deals with this last change: the proposal for a standalone provision in the new public service legislation addressing Maori-Crown relations.

The State Services Minister, Chris Hipkins has released five Cabinet Papers (with minor redactions) which outlie the details of the proposals and some of the options that have not been adopted. The new legislation is yet to be drafted and is expected to be introduced and enacted alter in the year.

In a speech announcing the reform proposals (link here), Minister Hipkins stated:

The Act will include a stand-alone clause that is clear about the expectations of the public service in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. In other words, the Act will recognise the responsibility of the Public Service – including Crown Agents – to support the Crown to fulfil its responsibilities under the Treaty.

This will also mean chief executives have a collective responsibility to develop cultural competence and capability, for supporting Māori leadership within the public service and ensuring the public service engages with and has strong relationships with Māori

The Cabinet Paper dealing with the Crown- Māori relations (link here) is worth reading in full. The substantive recommendations were as follows:

5. agree that the stand-alone clause in the new Public Service Act include Option 2 as described in recommendation 4….

8. agree that, subject to agreement to recommendations 5, the stand-alone clause also clarifies expectations that the New Zealand Public Service is to:

8.1 promote engagement, participation and partnership with Māori including proactive informed and collaborative approaches that are mutually beneficial and strengthen the relationship;

8.2 deliver services and results that are responsive to, accessible to, and work for Māori and whanau to improve results;

8.3 have a workforce that reflects and understands the communities it serves, is valued for its cultural competence, and empowers Māori to succeed as Māori in the public service;

8.4 promote a leadership and culture that encourages cultural competence to delivers with and for Māori and develops and supports Māori in senior leadership and decision-making roles.

9. agree that the Public Service Act include responsibilities on the Public Service Commissioner and chief executives in relation to:

9.1 responsibility for developing the cultural competence and capability of the public service;

9.2 supporting Māori leadership within the public service;

9.3 ensuring the public service has strong relationships with Māori, is responsive to the needs and aspirations of Māori and advances opportunities to work with Māori.

10. agree that there is an expectation on the Public Service Commissioner to hold public service chief executives accountable for enabling the Crown to fulfil its responsibilities to the Māori/Crown relationship and Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi

Commentary

As I am not an expert in New Zealand public policy, I don’t propose to adopt a robustly critical stance in relation to these proposals. On their face, they appear both sensible and well considered. A comprehensive consultation process outlined in detail in the Cabinet Paper underpins them.

The obvious point to make however is that the reform proposals demonstrate just how far Australia lags New Zealand in addressing relations with First Nations. We have no treaty or treaties, and appear intent on stalling any substantive constitutional reform. In contrast to New Zealand, we appear pathologically resistant to the benefits of open and transparent policy making across the board, but particularly in relation to first Nations Policy matters.

It will be interesting to compare the New Zealand proposals with the recommendations and outcomes of the current review of the APS. My prediction is that the APS review is unlikely to lead to a specific legislative provision relating to relations between the APS and First Nations. Such a legislative provision would not be a panacea, but would make clear that public servants have an obligation to serve the public in all its diversity.