Issuu

Public Sector

JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC P R O F E S S I O N A L S A O T E A R OA N E W Z E A L A N D

VO L U M E 4 9 • I S S U E 3 SPRING 2026

Rāngai Tūmatanui

Healthy work by design: Understanding psychosocial factors, hazards, and risks How to do AI well in the Public Service Hāpai Public celebrates: Favourite memories from our supporters

A Division of Alpha Recruitment Limited

The Johnson Group has worked across the public sector since 2005. A member of the All of Government Recruitment Panel and regarded for our expertise in public sector recruitment, our consultants are specialists who understand the very specific skill sets required of public sector professionals as well as the intricacies of the Wellington market. We know our candidates well - from what drives or interests them to how they fit into your team to deliver excellent outcomes. Talk to us about how we can help you land your next role, or find the ideal candidate to strengthen your team.

Let our team help BUILD YOUR TEAM Principal Consultant M: 020 4150 8085 james@thejohnsongroup.co.nz

James Atkin

Principal Consultant M: 027 405 2594 marissa@thejohnsongroup.co.nz

Marissa Taylor

www.thejohnsongroup.co.nz Preferred AoG Provider and Recruitment Specialists for the New Zealand Public Sector.

Senior Talent Manager erin@thejohnsongroup.co.nz

Erin Wyllie

Pre-Election Recruitment Activity We have seen a sharp increase in job opportunities across both our Wellington and Auckland offices. With the new financial year, refreshed budgets and new programmes of work, activity took off sooner than we anticipated it would. Contracting, fixed term and temporary hiring has increased as organisations seek flexibility while establishing new programmes of work and while responding to changing business needs. Permanent hiring is also occurring with organisations taking a more disciplined approach to hiring, with greater scrutiny around budgets. Systems, AI, Capability Development, Workforce Planning and Organisational Change remain key areas of focus, as businesses look to improve efficiency and prepare for the future. AI continues to shape the talent market, but organisations are also recognising the importance of maintaining human connection throughout recruitment, leadership and workplace transformation. While hiring activity has increased, the approaching election may lead to more cautious decision-making in some areas of the market. If you’d like insight into specific areas of the market, or support with upcoming hiring, we’d love to help. Contact Katerina Makarios, Eugene Ng or Shane MacKay on 04 4999471.

PRESIDENT’S M E S SAG E

Preparing to serve under the next MMP government

On 7 November Aotearoa New Zealand will go to the polls to elect its eleventh MMP government. While we don’t know the make-up of the next government, we do know one thing for certain after 30 years of MMP elections. The Mixed Member Proportional system delivers change. Collaboration with other parties is almost always required to deliver secure government. As a result, each MMP government is different. While this is most obvious where the mix of parties changes, it is true even where the political parties that make up the Government are the same. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, noted for his focus on change, is reputed to have said, “No one ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and they are not the same person.” The same can be said of MMP. Each time an MMP government is formed it is shaped by the experiences of those that came before it. Different governing arrangements, different internal and external relationship dynamics. Successes and missteps. Different ways of working with officials. Even where the political parties and personalities in the coalition or partnership are the same, the players will have learnt something from the last arrangement. This includes the closing moments as the next election looms and

the governing parties seek to differentiate themselves to the voters. The tendency towards greater prescription in the policy programme as part of governing agreements is one example of this ‘repeat game’ playing out.

H Ā PA I P U B L I C P R E S I D E N T

Liz MacPherson

What does this mean for public servants, particularly senior officials who work with ministers in what is often called ‘the purple zone’? Apolitical, but working within a political context in support of the government of the day. Now is the time to reflect on what we have learnt: The importance of being very familiar with the governing documents – both agreed programmes of work and ways of working. How to navigate the first 100 days, to understand the multi-layered parliamentary relationships and undertakings that your minister will need to negotiate to deliver on their role. How to provide free and frank advice in the context of coalition priorities, while maintaining the trust and confidence of ministers. It is also time to reflect on what we need as leaders to sustain ourselves and our people in an MMP environment. We are also not the same people who stepped into the current MMP river. We, too, have been affected and shaped by our experiences. We need to make time to catch our breath before making our next river crossing.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

CONTENTS

PUBLISHER

Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand PO Box 5032, Wellington, New Zealand Email: office@hapaipublic.org.nz Website: hapaipublic.org.nz 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. E D I TO R

Kathy Young editor@hapaipublic.org.nz C O N T R I B U TO R S

Alexandra Andhov, Marta Andhov, Steph Bradley, Esme Franken, Farheen Hussain, Mary Kilkelly, Jim McAloon, Liz MacPherson, Magnus O’Neill, Zoë Port, Bronwyn Presland, Finn Shewell, David Tappin, Millie Thompson, Kathy Young

01 P R E S I D E N T’ S M E S SAG E

Preparing to serve under the next MMP government

04 L E A D S TO RY

Healthy work by design: Understanding psychosocial factors, hazards, and risks Dr Zoë Port, Millie Thompson and Associate Professor David Tappin, all from Massey University’s School of Management, report on new research showing that managing psychosocial risks means looking beyond individual wellbeing to the systems, culture, and transparency that shape how work is done.

J O U R N A L A DV I S O RY GROUP

Lox MacKay, Madeleine Parker, Bronwyn Presland, Stefan Speller, Kathy Young

10 A N A LYS I S

How to do AI well in the Public Service Associate Professor Marta Andhov and Professor Alexandra Andhov, Directors of the Centre for Advancing Law and Technology Responsibly (ALTeR), University of Auckland, outline vital questions to ask before deploying AI in the Public Service, examine lessons from other countries, and recommend practical steps for New Zealand.

A DV E R T I S I N G

Email: office@hapaipublic.org.nz

CONTRIBUTIONS

Public Sector welcomes contributions to each issue from readers. Please contact the editor for more information.

I N V E S T I G AT I O N

Are public servants motivated to serve? Yes, but it’s not that simple

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Hāpai Public welcomes both corporate and individual membership and journal subscriptions. Please email office@hapaipublic.org.nz or visit hapaipublic.org.nz to register online.

DISCLAIMER

Opinions expressed in Public Sector are those of various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor, the journal advisory group, or Hāpai Public. Every effort is made to provide accurate and factual content. The publishers and editorial staff, however, cannot accept responsibility for any inadvertent errors or omissions that may occur. Cover images by Svstudioart and magnific on magnific 2

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

REFLECTIONS

90-year anniversary: Moments that matter Editor Kathy Young asks supporters of Hāpai Public to recount some of their favourite memories from their time in the organisation.

New research into Australasian public servants, led by Dr Esme Franken from Edith Cowan University, shows how red tape and reactive workplaces are squandering genuine employee commitment.

20 INSIGHTS

Rights to access information Magnus O’Neill, General Manager of Te Kāhui Kāhu, Ministry of Social Development, shares his practical tips on three specific rights of access that public servants should know about when processing an OIA request.

H I S TO RY O F T H E P U B L I C S E R V I C E

How Aotearoa New Zealand built its independent watchdogs

P U B L I C S E R V I C E SYS T E M

The Māori-Crown relationship: The why, the who, and the how

Jim McAloon, Professor of History at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, outlines the history of the three Officers of Parliament, otherwise known as the ‘watchdogs’.

We summarise insights of three public servants who presented at a recent Hāpai Public workshop, discussing the relationship between Māori and the Crown: why it exists, who sits across the table, and how it works.

28 23

FOCUS

How a citizen’s assembly could work for Aotearoa New Zealand Finn Shewell, Committee Member at Trust Democracy, outlines in seven steps how a citizen’s assembly could work in Aotearoa New Zealand.

O B I T U A RY

Liz MacPherson remembers the life of John R Martin, and his significant contribution to Hāpai Public and the public sector of Aotearoa New Zealand.

24 FOCUS

Digital twins: Why the public sector cannot afford to stay analogue Steph Bradley and Mary Kilkelly, from Deloitte’s Infrastructure and Industrials practice, outline how real-time digital twins offer a way to test what happens before decisions are made.

T H E AT R E R E V I E W

Communications professional and former journalist Farheen Hussain reviews Public Service Announcements: Election Meltdown, performed at the Circa Theatre, Wellington.

29 D I D YO U K N O W ?

Five fascinating facts about the science your taxes help fund Here are five discoveries happening in Aotearoa New Zealand’s own backyard, and funded by the New Zealand Government.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

L E A D S T O RY

Healthy work by design: Understanding psychosocial factors, hazards, and risks Dr Zoë Port and Professor David Tappin, from Massey University’s School of Management, and Millie Thompson, a Massey University graduate, report on research showing that managing psychosocial risks means looking beyond individual wellbeing to the systems, culture, and transparency that shape how work is done. Physical hazards are often easy to see. A slippery floor, unsafe equipment, or working at height usually prompts a clear response. Psychosocial hazards are often less visible. They arise from the way work is designed, how it is organised and then managed, and through the social and organisational contexts in which it occurs. Factors such as workload, control, leadership, relationships, communication, organisational change, support, and the resources available to do the job can all shape whether work is healthy, safe, and sustainable. Beyond stress or burnout The term ‘psychosocial factors’ refers to “elements of work and interactions at work related to how jobs are designed, how work is organised and managed, and the broader policies, practices and procedures that govern work, as well as the ways in which these elements interrelate, all of which can influence workers’ health and well-being as well as organizational performance”. Psychosocial factors are not inherently harmful. The term itself is neutral. When experienced positively, these factors can foster work that is rewarding, meaningful, and interesting for the people involved.

AUTHORS

Dr Zoë Port Professor David Tappin Millie Thompson

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

When these aspects of work have the potential to cause harm, they become psychosocial hazards. Examples include excessive or insufficient demands, low job control, unclear roles, poorly managed change, poor workplace relationships, and inadequate support or resources (for further information on these, refer to WorkSafe NZ, 2025; or ISO45003, 2021). The same aspect of work can be helpful in one setting and harmful in another. Working from home may provide flexibility, support work-life

balance, and reduce commuting. It can also increase isolation, reduce access to support, and blur work-home boundaries. Whether a psychosocial factor becomes a hazard depends on the broader work context and the way it interacts with other factors. Psychosocial risk is the likelihood that exposure to these hazards will cause harm. The level of risk can vary between workers, build through continued exposure, and increase when several work and/or non-work factors combine. Psychosocial hazards and risk as terms are sometimes conflated with stress and burnout, but they are not the same thing. Stress, exhaustion, burnout, anxiety, and depression are some of the possible outcomes of exposure to psychosocial hazards. Physical health may also be affected by psychosocial hazards. For organisations, the effects can include lower worker engagement, commitment, and job satisfaction, as well as higher absenteeism and staff turnover. There is no single cause of workplace stress, and no single response that will address the risk, or suit every worker or workplace. The most effective approach is to implement a range of measures that address the causes of psychosocial risks, provide people with skills to better cope with these risks, and help people who have been harmed by exposure to psychosocial risks (for more details, refer to chapter 11 in Leka & Jain, 2024). Job demands and job resources can help to explain why highly demanding work is not automatically unhealthy. Workload, time pressure, and intensive work are examples of demands. Resources include control over how work is carried out, support from managers and colleagues, recognition and reward, participation in decision-making, and job security. The risk of harm (eg, stress or burnout) is greater when high demands are paired with too little control, support, or other resources. What the law requires Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, organisations must protect workers’ physical and mental health, so far as is reasonably practicable. This includes managing psychosocial risks arising from how work is designed, organised, and carried out. Organisations must identify these risks and provide the highest level of protection that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. The priority is to eliminate hazards or prevent exposure at their source. Where elimination is not reasonably practicable, risks must be minimised through the most effective available controls. Organisations must also engage with workers and their representatives when identifying risks and deciding how to manage them.

IMAGE BY PRESSFOTO ON MAGNIFIC P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

L E A D S T O RY

C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K O F D E T E R M I N A N T S A N D I M PA C T S O F W O R K - R E L AT E D P SYC H O L O G I C A L R I S K S ( L E K A & J A I N , 2 0 2 4 )

Macro Context

Psychosocial Work Environment

Polictical context Social context Economic context Technological context

Policy context

Labour Market Dynamics

OSH Infrastructure

Dimensions: • Organisational culture & function • Job content • Workload & work pace • Work schedule • Control • Environment & equipment • Interpersonal relationships at work • Role in organisation • Career development • Home-work interface

Health Impact

Organisational Impact

Ecological context

Managing psychosocial risks requires more than providing wellbeing initiatives or support after harm occurs. Organisations should identify and address the underlying work factors that may cause harm, monitor whether controls are effective, and review them regularly, particularly when work or circumstances change. In short, psychosocial risks must be managed as systematically as physical workplace risks. Psychosocial risks in public sector work Psychosocial risks are present in every sector, and public sector organisations face many of the same hazards as other workplaces. However, the nature of public service can create distinctive situations in which multiple risks arise and interact. Workers may encounter potentially traumatic events or material, high emotional demands, and intense public scrutiny alongside more common hazards such as excessive workload, poorly managed change, unclear roles, and inadequate support.

Psychosocial risks must be managed as systematically as physical workplace risks. 6

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

Some exposure is inherent in delivering essential public services and cannot be eliminated without fundamentally changing or stopping the work. Firefighters must still attend serious accidents, police officers may need to enter crime scenes, and social workers may need to intervene when children are at risk. However, exposure does not inevitably result in harm, and psychosocial risks rarely operate in isolation. Emerging Aotearoa New Zealand research with firefighters suggests that the effects of potentially traumatic work are shaped by the organisational environment in which it occurs. Psychosocial factors, such as workload, staffing, leadership, communication, trust, support, and resourcing, can compound the demands of the work or help protect workers from harm. This means public sector organisations are not powerless simply because some hazards are inherent in their work. Strengthening organisational conditions can reduce the likelihood that unavoidable exposure results in harm. It can also help to address non-traumatic hazards arising from how work is designed and managed. Psychosocial risks, such as excessive workload, low role clarity, and poorly managed change, may be less visible than exposure to traumatic events. However, they

Exposure does not inevitably result in harm, and psychosocial risks rarely operate in isolation.

can still cause serious harm when they are prolonged, repeated, or poorly controlled. The likelihood of this harm increases cumulatively through the number of risk factors involved. Effective psychosocial risk management, therefore, requires attention to both the inherent demands of public service and the organisational conditions that shape workers’ experience of those demands. Creating mentally healthy public sector work Improving mentally healthy work in the public sector requires more than supporting individual workers exposed to particular hazards. Forthcoming research from the authors suggests that attention must also be given to the wider system in which public services are commissioned, resourced, governed, and delivered. Public sector organisations operate within an environment shaped by political direction,

public accountability, financial constraints, media attention, and changing community expectations. These conditions influence organisational priorities, resources, and timeframes, and ultimately how work is designed and experienced by public servants. They can also affect how openly agencies identify, discuss, and respond to psychosocial risks. One example is the tension that can arise between the need for public sector transparency to the New Zealand public and the organisational conditions required for psychosocial risks to be openly identified, discussed, and communicated internally. Public transparency is fundamental to a trusted and accountable public service. However, because information held by government agencies may be publicly requested, reported, or debated, organisations may understandably be cautious about collecting or documenting information that could be taken out of context or interpreted as evidence of failure. Public sector leaders say workforce data gathered to fix problems can come back to bite them, according to research (and forthcoming research findings from the authors) by Geoff Plimmer and Charlie Mitchell.

This can suppress important discussion of workload, capability gaps, harmful work practices, and emerging risks. It may also create caution about gathering detailed exposure data, particularly when identifying a problem appears to pose a more immediate risk than leaving it unmeasured. This tension matters because effective psychosocial risk management depends on reliable information. Workers need to feel safe raising concerns, managers need accurate insights into their team members’ experiences of work, and senior leaders need clear evidence when controls are not working. Without these conditions, problems may remain hidden until they become visible through worker harm, absenteeism, turnover, complaints, or service failures. Creating a mentally healthy public sector, therefore, requires attention not only to the hazards themselves, but also to the broader conditions that influence how those hazards are detected, discussed, and addressed.

Problems may remain hidden until they become visible through worker harm, absenteeism, turnover, complaints, or service failures.

Dr Zoë Port is a lecturer in the School of Marketing and Management at Massey University and co-director of the research team the Healthy Work Group. She leads the Mentally Healthy Work practitioner development micro-credential, which runs annually. Her research centres around healthy work and employment relations. She is also passionate about improving work for younger workers through research and practice, and holds youth union leadership roles at the national and international level. David Tappin is a Professor in the School of Management and Marketing at Massey University and co-director of the Healthy Work Group. His research primarily concerns the design and management of work systems with the aim of enabling work to be psychosocially and physically sustainable. Before joining Massey in 2011, he was an injury prevention consultant, and later worked at Scion Research conducting research in primary industries and manufacturing. Millie Thompson holds a master’s degree in organisational psychology and is currently completing a postgraduate diploma in organisational psychology as part of her pathway towards registration as a psychologist. She has worked across a number of public sector organisations, including the New Zealand Defence Force, WorkSafe New Zealand, the Government Health and Safety Lead, and the Ministry of Social Development. Millie has a particular interest in system-level approaches to mentally healthy work and psychosocial risk management, leading the New Zealand public sector’s cross-agency focus on psychosocial safety and contributing to regulatory guidance in this area.

Contributions please Public Sector journal is always happy to receive contributions from readers. If you’re working on an interesting project in the public sector or have something relevant to say about a particular issue, think about sending us a short article on the subject. Contact the editor Kathy Young at editor@hapaipublic.org.nz

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

REFLECTIONS

Moments that matter In the third in a series of four articles for Hāpai Public’s 90th anniversary, editor Kathy Young asks supporters of the organisation to recount some of their favourite memories.

Ask supporters about their favourite Hāpai Public memories, and a pattern emerges: genuine exchange, honest conversations in safe spaces, and moments that have steadily shaped Aotearoa New Zealand’s public sector.

AUTHOR

Kathy Young

Celebrating success Hāpai Public established the Public Sector Innovation Awards in 1999, revamped as the Public Sector Excellence Awards from 2008. The awards come up repeatedly from supporters of Hāpai Public as a highlight. In every case, they are spoken about with genuine pride. “IPANZ [now Hāpai Public] has good reason to be very proud of those awards,” Len Cook, President 2009–13 recalls. “It was so good to celebrate achievements in such a professional way.”

and continue to this day as the Spirit of Service Awards. The power of being a critical friend Some of the proudest moments happened quietly, behind closed doors. Derek Gill, board member of Hāpai Public, recalls research into the principles underpinning the Public Service Act and Public Service workplace behaviour, particularly questions about bullying. “Hāpai Public could ask those difficult questions precisely because we were trusted to use that information with integrity,” he says. This wasn’t about exposing the Public Service; it was about creating safe spaces for complex conversations. “We encouraged public servants to be braver about things like bullying, and to have those testing conversations.”

The sentiment runs deep. John Larkindale, President from 2013 to 2017, draws an interesting comparison. “Look at what you have to do to become a dame [or a knight] in the voluntary sector versus the public sector – it’s a much higher bar [in the public sector]. Bearing in mind the relatively recent establishment of the New Zealand Public Service Medal, I think we still need to acknowledge achievements more in the public sector.” The Public Sector Innovation/Excellence Awards filled that gap spectacularly. Len describes them as “amazingly confidencebuilding … that whole sense of collective ownership of good work.” The Awards were transferred to Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission in 2020

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

CLAIRE ACHMAD, FORMER HĀPAI PUBLIC NEW PROFESSIONALS CO-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER

“Hāpai Public could ask those difficult questions precisely because we were trusted to use that information with integrity.” (Derek Gill)

Joe spoke about institutional memory and forgetting. Then came the questions from young public servants, eager to learn. Watching Joe’s reaction, the way that he empowered them – it was an extraordinary moment. A time to think about what that means for the future of New Zealand.” A positive reputation When asked about favourite memories, Kay Booth, Executive Director 2023–26, talks about her pleasant surprise at how willing people are to assist the organisation’s mahi. “Everyone I have ever asked to contribute to Hāpai Public – as a speaker, a writer for our journal, a panellist and so on – they have all been keen to help us. From former MPs to chief executives to business partners, they just say yes. I don’t think anyone has ever said no, except for logistical reasons,” says Kay.

CULLUM PENI-WESCHE

Deb Te Kawa, former Hāpai Public board member, was most delighted when she (on behalf of Hāpai Public) partnered with central agencies to run three seminars about Performance Improvement Frameworks. “These events gave us a rare chance to connect with people working in the middle levels of the public sector. We could offer them context for their work, strengthen their understanding, and give them a language to talk about what they do every day. It’s what we do best: create spaces where public servants can learn and grow together.”

The joy of good company For newer members, particularly those involved with the New Professionals leadership team, the memories are more immediate but no less meaningful. “It’s probably the only time I’ve ever looked forward to an evening meeting,” says Cullum Peni-Wesche, former New Professionals cochair and board member at Hāpai Public. “The energy, the shared kaupapa, the ability to frontload the meeting with some business, but stay and have a good yarn afterwards, are priceless.”

LEN COOK, PRESIDENT 2009–13

“The energy, the shared kaupapa, the ability to front-load the meeting with some business, but stay and have a good yarn afterwards, are priceless.” (Cullum Peni-Wesche)

Claire Achmad, former Hāpai Public New Professionals co-chair and board member, shares one of her favourite memories as being the setting up of the ‘Meet the Chiefs’ events, which provide opportunities for new public servants to meet senior public sector leaders. “Our team established those in 2009, and so I feel really proud that, seventeen years later, the initiative is still running and is still so popular.” As Alex Loo, current co-chair of the New Professionals network and board member of Hāpai Public, says, “It’s so heartening to see how generous chief executives and senior managers are with their time. You get the sense they’re really personally invested, and they really want to be there and share what they know with you.”

Speaking freely Supporters spoke fondly of the discussions under the Chatham House Rule, organised by Hāpai Public, for example, which focused on “no surprises”. These brought together former ministers, current chief executives and others to discuss contentious issues.

What it all means What ties these moments together is that they are about genuine exchange – honest conversations in safe rooms, young public servants empowered by elder wisdom, achievements celebrated properly, difficult research that helps the system improve itself.

It was a place where senior practitioners could have honest conversations about how things actually worked, “having the right people in the right room,” as Derek says. Moments of cultural resonance For Liz MacPherson, current President of Hāpai Public, her standout memory is the Ivan Kwok Memorial Lecture with Justice Joe Williams during Covid-19, filmed at Te Papa.

KAY BOOTH

“It felt deeply powerful,” she recalls. “The rangatira for the area did the opening, I sang the waiata with Trevor Moeke, and Justice

“Hāpai Public is at its very best when it is making sense of the world for its members.” (Kay Booth)

As Kay sums it up: “Hāpai Public is at its very best when it is making sense of the world for its members.” Through awards that celebrate excellence, through spaces where truth can be spoken, through events that bring generations together – that’s where the magic happens. That’s what people remember.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

A N A LYS I S

In May 2026, Finance Minister Nicola Willis used a pre-Budget speech to announce that around 8,700 roles would be cut from core public service agencies by mid-2029 as part of a plan to deliver $2.4 billion in savings over four years for health, education, and infrastructure. Alongside the job losses, Willis committed to merging agencies and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) as, in her own words, “a basic expectation for all public entities” (1News). The announcement arrives at a time when the workforce has already been through three years of near-continuous restructuring, and, importantly, it comes without a public account of how the transition is planned to work in practice. The three questions worth answering The response to Minister Willis’s announcement settles on three key questions: 1. Where is the AI being sourced from? 2. What will it cost? 3. How will New Zealanders’ information and data be protected? AUTHORS

Associate Professor Marta Andhov Professor Alexandra Andhov

Each of these questions offers an opportunity for New Zealand. Sourcing: Pressed in Parliament, Digitising Government Minister Paul Goldsmith said only that he was “not aware of a current local AI provider” at scale and that the Government would “make use of the best technology available”. The successful AI supplier will do more than win a contract. It will shape the logic behind decisions in core government functions, decisions that have

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

IMAGE BY RAWPIXEL.COM ON MAGNIFIC

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

A N A LYS I S

historically been owned by, and answerable to, elected officials and public servants. Australia’s Robodebt Scheme (Royal Commission Report) and the Netherlands’ childcare benefits scandal (Amnesty International Report) show how quickly automated decisionmaking can go wrong. In both cases, systems were pursued primarily for efficiency, with too little invested in safeguarding values and human rights, and the resulting harm was large scale.

with the scheme producing a net cost to the government of over $565 million instead of the budgeted saving of $4.7 billion (Royal Commission Report). Even taken on its own terms, as a question of process and cost savings, the arithmetic is incomplete. Cutting public service roles creates a corresponding need to build others: assurance, oversight, and audit of the AI systems themselves. The offsetting costs have not been set out yet.

Both systems, however, were run domestically rather than by third-country providers, which dominate current AI development. The New Zealand Government’s case for buying abroad rests on access to the best available technology. Though ‘best’ is doing a lot of work in that argument, and it is worth asking best by whose measure, and for what.

Capability and data: Public sector entities are repeatedly found to lack the internal expertise needed to verify or independently assess the AI systems they introduce, leaving evaluation largely to vendor assurance. This gap matters most where we incorporate public data into privately owned AI systems, because the resulting uses can exceed the boundaries citizens understood at the point of collection. Even well-designed consent processes struggle to keep pace with systems that continue drawing new inferences from data collected years earlier. The 2025 Manage My Health breach, which exposed patients’ medical and mental health records, offers a preview of the scale and the human costs. The systems now being planned across government could hold data more revealing than any single health portal, which is precisely why the capability to interrogate them needs to be built before they are deployed.

Two arguments follow. First, the value settings inside these systems are policy decisions, not technical ones, and the Government has to be a partner in making them. Te Tiriti obligations, tikanga, and Māori data sovereignty belong in that same design conversation, not in a review conducted once the architecture is developed and deployed. Second, the protections that matter are contractual: independent audit of the model and its outputs, validation of training data against New Zealand populations, an override right that carries no pricing penalty, explanations sufficient to give reasons under the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act, notice before any model update, and exit with a prompt data return in a usable format. Each is far cheaper to secure at the procurement stage, when the public sector, as the buyer, holds a competitive edge rather than after the contract has been concluded or even later on during potential litigation. This means the public officials making these decisions now need to know which terms are non-negotiable and what they wish to achieve, even before the negotiations start. Cost: There is currently no published breakdown of what share of the $2.4 billion in savings AI is expected to deliver. Enterprise AI is a subscription, not a purchase. Licensing, model upgrades, and cybersecurity obligations recur indefinitely, and renewal terms are negotiated from a much weaker position once the Public Service can no longer function without the system. Sound budgeting therefore needs two margins. One for price escalation, and one for the cost of correcting errors. New Zealand has precedents for calibrating both. The Novopay payroll system was budgeted at $182.5 million over 10 years, with a later report finding the budget was exceeded by $23.9 million (Ministerial Inquiry). Further, Robodebt shows how the cost of algorithmic systems can invert entirely when errors occur,

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

What we can learn from overseas The European Union and Australia both offer examples of active government stewardship over AI, and there is something in each for New Zealand. The EU AI Act classifies AI used by public authorities to determine eligibility for benefits or essential services as high risk, attaching binding obligations to those systems: risk management, logging, human oversight, technical documentation, and conformity assessment. But the more immediate lesson for New Zealand is about procurement itself. In the EU, large-scale buying decisions are governed by legislation rather than policy. In both the EU and in New Zealand contracts that are above set value thresholds must be advertised, their technical specifications and award criteria must be set out in advance, and the outcome published. However, the difference lies not in the existence of these requirements but in their enforcement. In the EU they are statutory, specified in prescribed form, and enforceable; a bidder who is denied them has a remedy. In New Zealand they are Cabinet-mandated policy. Judicial review is formally available, but the courts have been reluctant to intervene in procurement, and there is no standstill period, so recourse in practice runs to the Auditor-

General, the Ombudsman, or a minister, all of whom report after the fact. This matters more here than it would elsewhere. New Zealand has no AI legislation and no statutory limit on automated decisionmaking, which means the contract is the only place where the protections set out above can currently be found. It also means the procurement documents are where the public account of how these systems will work would exist, if it exists anywhere. Enforceability shapes those documents even when no one invokes them: a specification that may have to be justified to a review body has to be written so that it can be justified. And the disclosure it compels, what was asked for, on what criteria, at what price, becomes a record available to anyone, which is not what the rules were designed for, but is what they produce. Australia has taken a complementary approach, building institutional infrastructure around AI use rather than legislation. Agencies must publish transparency statements on their AI use, backed by a dedicated AI Safety Institute for oversight. New Zealand is still waiting for such an institute. New Zealand currently has neither the EU’s legal framework nor Australia’s institutional one, and yet has already committed to embedding AI as a basic expectation across the Public Service regardless. What safe execution requires Three changes would do most of the work. A framework fit for the tech (AI) purchase: The Government Procurement Rules are tiered, apply unevenly across agencies, and carry limited power to compel timely and accurate reporting. Two routes forward follow the international examples above. The institutional route builds AI-specific infrastructure and mandatory transparency requirements, as Australia has done. The legislative route embeds AI-specific obligations into new legislation (ie, EU AI Act) or into procurement itself. Besides creating statutory procurement law, one option would be to develop model AI procurement clauses similar to those published by the European Commission and Australia’s Digital Transformation Agency, which cover transparency, audit rights, data handling, notice of model updates, and exit. New Zealand should produce its own. Doing so requires no legislation, only a decision to begin, and it would spare every individual buyer the task of working out from scratch which terms are non-negotiable. This approach would give New Zealand agencies clear rules for deploying safely, and

give citizens a framework that protects them. Both are achievable within the timeframe of the current transition if started now. Training and awareness: Skills gaps are a leading barrier to government AI adoption internationally. For example, a survey of the Australian Public Service found that 92 per cent of employees had received no AI training at all and a different report in the United Kingdom stated that 70 per cent of United Kingdom government agencies struggle to recruit and retain staff with AI skills. Without those skills and training, agencies across New Zealand cannot assess vendor claims and can only mindlessly rely on assurances rather than independent judgement. Training must come before deployment, not after. Staff who procure or operate an AI system should be able to explain what it does and where it is likely to fail, otherwise efficiency gains are asserted by the vendor and never verified by the buyer. Human oversight that is real: Meaningful (and capable) human oversight is a foundational principle across major AI governance frameworks, and it depends on the two changes above. New Zealand’s current guidance instructs staff to “understand, check and agree” with AI outputs before using them, but says nothing about what training or capability that check actually requires. This echoes a pattern seen internationally, where oversight provisions place a human in the process without ensuring that the oversight is effective. Meaningful oversight rests on people with enough experience to recognise when something is wrong, the same institutional judgement that job reductions are now drawing down. Simply put, agencies that build the capability internally to understand and thus supervise a system before scaling it will realise the savings. Those that scale first will spend the savings on remediation.

What can public servants do now? Public servants must build their knowledge of AI and with AI. Naturally, they should be able to work with diverse AI tools, but more importantly, they should be able to critically evaluate when and how to use these tools in the first place. Among others, they should: •

•

Ask what the AI system was trained on and what it was built for. A tool that performs well on one population or process may perform poorly on another. Ask for technical documentation. Have the ability to check the data behind an output before relying on it. If the underlying record is wrong, a confident answer is worse than no answer. Insist on traceability to source. Be critical of an outcome. Even more so if it is anything consequential, particularly where the decision affects a person’s entitlement, safety, or status. Keep checking the system’s outputs against human judgement. A tool that was accurate at a rollout can drift as the data or the process around it changes. Sample and compare on a fixed schedule. Be honest about what the tool does and does not get right. Documented written limitations are what allow the next person to use it safely. Maintain a comprehensive record.

These are best developed through training tied to the specific tools and decisions public servants actually encounter, rather than generic awareness sessions detached from Public Service values. Staff who build these habits are also the people best placed to tell an agency which processes are worth automating and which are not, which makes them an asset to the transition rather than a casualty of it.

In conclusion AI in government can be transformative, and New Zealand is not starting from behind. The concerns raised are not reasons to abandon the shift but rather a call for what is required to do it right. Other governments have shown that safeguards can be built before deployment rather than added as a safety feature after something goes wrong (and it always does). The scale of the job cuts makes the point unavoidable: AI adoption cannot be assumed into existence. It has to be built deliberately into how the Public Service buys, secures, trains for, uses, and oversees the tools it will rely on. Professor Alexandra Andhov holds the Chair in Law and Technology at the University of Auckland and directs the Centre for Advancing Law and Technology Responsibly (ALTeR). She specialises in the regulation of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and blockchain, and has published extensively in the field, including Computational Law, which examines how technology is reshaping legal thinking itself. A Fulbright Scholar and regular Forbes contributor, Alexandra works closely with technology start-ups and regulatory bodies on how law must evolve to keep pace with rapid technological change. Dr Marta Andhov is an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland’s Law and Business Schools, specialising in contract law, governmental contracts, public procurement, and the integration of strategic considerations into legal frameworks. A Fulbright Scholar, she is co-director of the Centre for Advancing Law and Technology Responsibly (ALTeR). Beyond her research and training in public procurement, Marta works across a wide spectrum of stakeholders – international organisations, governments and professional bodies alike – on the practical challenges facing procurement processes and contracting today.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

I N V E S T I G AT I O N

Are public servants motivated to serve? Yes, but it’s not that simple New research into Australasian public servants, led by Dr Esme Franken from Edith Cowan University, shows how red tape and reactive workplaces are squandering genuine employee commitment.

Job cuts across Aotearoa New Zealand’s public sector have undoubtedly undermined many workers’ motivation to serve the public, with roughly 8,700 roles set to go by 2029. This matters because the motivation to serve, or public service motivation (PSM), drives many workforce outcomes. But this isn’t the full story. Our recent research on Australasian public servants shows that having a motivated public sector workforce is only a very small part of a much larger puzzle about how to nurture committed, passionate, and hardworking employees. AUTHOR

Dr Esme Franken

PSM has long been defined as an “individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations”. On the surface, this seems like an uncomplicated, desirable state for a public servant to find

ADAPTED FROM FRANKEN ET AL., 2026

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

themselves in, but there are a few caveats. The first is that considerable research has explored the ‘dark side’ of PSM – where a public servant might experience negative outcomes as a result of high PSM, such as work stress, low job satisfaction, and burnout. It can also be frustrating and distressing for those who want to serve but cannot, due to organisational constraints, resource scarcity, and red tape. It might even justify integrity violations that are seen to promote the public interest. Another important caveat is that an intellectual war has been waging for decades over whether PSM is a trait or a malleable state. The evidence increasingly suggests PSM is both: a stable trait that predisposes people towards public service, and a state that responds to the conditions they work in.

Much of leaders’ attention was

spent on managing their authorising Taking PSM’s conceptual ambiguity as our environment... Theytospoke much starting point, we sought understand howless Australasian public servants about managing downactually their experience this motivation in their work, organisational hierarchy. including whether PSM might cluster together with other affective states, such as commitment, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction, and whether this clustering might differ across a workforce, forming different ‘profiles’ of PSM. What public servants told us We started with interviews with policy analysts, frontline service workers, and public managers (n=29) to explore the affective experience of PSM. One strong example from New Zealand was the motivation derived from working with Māori to improve land productivity, where the participant stated that “I just feel that we do some really important on the ground work in changing their lives”.

On the other hand, public servants also spoke about how their work environment could shape – or actively undermine – their motivation to serve. Three factors came up repeatedly: bureaucratic red tape, organisations that reacted to problems rather than getting ahead of them, and a general sense of volatility in how the sector operates. When these factors got in the way of people’s desire to help, workers described struggling, feeling frustrated, and – perhaps most troublingly – blaming themselves for outcomes that were often outside their control. From this phase of research, we established that public sector work environments can quell, thwart, or suppress PSM. We followed this with a quantitative phase (a sample of 222 New Zealand public servants), and used latent profile analysis to examine how PSM clusters alongside other affective states – commitment, satisfaction, and turnover intentions – across the workforce. Four profiles, one dividing line Just over half of the sample (55 per cent) fell into what we call the ‘Enacted’ profile: high PSM paired with genuinely positive attitudes towards the job and organisation – strong job satisfaction, strong affective commitment, and low intention to leave.

Our research delivers a clear message: New Zealand’s Public Service does not lack motivated employees. But for many public servants, this motivation may be going to waste, and what is missing is the organisational support needed to translate that motivation into sustained, positive outcomes. As the sector absorbs job cuts, the task for its leaders is not to search for public servants who want to serve, it is to build the conditions that let that motivation translate into practice. Dr Esme Franken is a Senior Lecturer at Edith Cowan University’s School of Business and Law, where she researches public sector work environments, leadership, and employee wellbeing. She earned her PhD in Human Resources and Industrial Relations from Victoria University of Wellington in 2019. Her work has appeared in journals including the Australian Journal of Public Administration, the International Journal of Human Resource Management and the Review of Public Personnel Administration.

The smallest group – but a clearly distinct one – is ‘Thwarted’. These respondents still score reasonably well on PSM, but everything else tells a different story: low commitment, low satisfaction, and the highest turnover intention of any group. The third group, ‘Motivated and Coping’ (27 per cent of the sample), is the most motivated of the four profiles, but their attitudes towards work (particularly turnover intentions) are markedly worse than those who belonged to the Enacted profile. We see this as an at-risk group: they could easily slide into Thwarted. The final group, ‘Resigned’, has the lowest PSM overall, with attitudes sitting closer to the middle of the range. They appear to cope better day-to-day than the Thwarted group; they care less in terms of motivation, so seem to suffer less. Statistically, the Thwarted, Motivated and Coping, and Resigned profiles all reported significantly lower perceived organisational support than the Enacted profile (our reference group). In other words, the Enacted profile stands out for higher perceived organisational support across the board. Thus, the perception of the degree to which one’s organisation supports them is crucial to the enactment of their PSM.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

PUBLIC SERVICE SYS T E M

The Māori-Crown relationship: The why, the who, and the how We summarise here the insights of three public servants who presented at a recent Hāpai Public workshop, covering the topic of the relationship between Māori and the Crown: why it exists, who sits across the table, and how it works.

The Hāpai Public Aspiring Senior Leaders Masterclass is a long-running series of three interactive afternoon workshops that brings tier 3 and 4 managers (nominated by their departmental chief executives) face to face with experienced practitioners to learn from their hard-won wisdom on the toughest aspects of modern public sector management. Helmut Modlik: The frame that got you here Helmut Modlik, Chief Executive of Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Toa, began by reflecting the likely thinking that his audience had arrived with. We all negotiate reality through mental models built by our upbringing, and hardened by confirmation bias, he argued; the wise response is to hold them loosely, with an open mind and heart. Then he offered three questions – why, who, and how? The why reached back to 1839. Before Hobson arrived, Modlik reminded the audience, the

British Crown had formally recognised the sovereignty of New Zealand’s tribes. The chiefs granted Queen Victoria the right to govern her own people; in return, she promised to protect Māori chieftainship over all that was theirs, to take first right of refusal on land, and to extend the rights of British subjects. Helmut’s provocation: can a rule-of-law stand honestly on a foundation of injustice and broken promises? The who was a caution against treating Māori as one tidy counterparty – iwi, hapū, and urban communities are not interchangeable, and who you talk to depends on what you want. The how was posture. Turn up as a giant, loud and certain, and the conversation will be short. Partnership itself, he noted, is a modern invention the courts reached for to reconcile Crown sovereignty and rangatiratanga – two things that do not fully reconcile.

IMAGE BY WIRESTOCK ON MAGNIFIC

His touchstones were simple: kanohi ki te kanohi, face to face; mana ki te mana, chiefs speaking with chiefs as respect, not hierarchy; tikanga, the right way of doing things. Relationships are with people, never entities, and genuineness overrides everything – the moment anyone smells a box-ticking exercise, you have wasted your breath. Trust, he said, is built over “a thousand cups of tea”, one meeting at a time. Write things down, because memory fades and people move on. Steven Sutton: The architecture If Helmut Modlik supplied the moral weather, Steven Sutton supplied the map. A senior public servant and before that a commercial lawyer and self-described structuralist, he made three points.

HELMUT MODLIK

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

STEVEN SUTTON

First, system leadership: the lead agency’s authority flows from statute – the 1991

Act establishing Te Puni Kōkiri Ministry of Māori Development – and from a Cabinetauthorised mandate to advise the distinct rights, interests, and responsibilities of iwi/ hapū and of Māori, and monitor and report the Crown’s implementation of Treaty settlement commitments. Second, the work belongs to everyone. Under the Public Service Act 2020, every department must build the capability to engage and to understand; no single lead agency can do it alone. Third, work always continues. Of roughly 15,000 settlement commitments, most are complete or on track – useful metrics, although not the entire story. “We manage what we measure”, however, the enduring relationship is what matters, and it does not just fit on a dashboard. His remedy was structural: a policy approach

IMAGE BY WIRESTOCK ON MAGNIFIC

through Te Tautuhi ō Rongo, thinking about innovative approaches to public value and service delivery that are whānau-centred, locally led and government-enabled; an approach to post-settlement commitments that emphasises coherent Crown practice and puts the relationship and the intent of the settlement at the core. Deb Te Kawa: A diplomatic relationship Deb Te Kawa had one argument; from a failure she named precisely. For nearly 200 years Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been treated as almost everything except what it is – a nullity, a risk, a compliance line, a problem too hard, a piece of theatre – and for the last 40 years the policy advisory system has run on Treaty principles, recycling framework after framework without landing substantive change in delivery. Why, she asked, do the principles never land? The answer is in what a principle is. Partnership, protection, and participation are standards of conduct: they shape inputs, tell officials how to behave, and say nothing about who does what and when. A standard of conduct can be affirmed, but it cannot be costed, weighed against an alternative, or run through an options appraisal, because it is not a variable with inputs, outputs, let alone outcomes. The Treaty

principles fail because they were never the kind of thing the delivery machinery can implement. Deb argued that the articles are that kind of thing. Kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga are allocations of authority – who decides, who designs, who delivers, who is accountable to whom – and authority is what the usual policy tools can take. An analyst can weigh a centrally derived design against a local one and cost

DEB TE KAWA

each and ask whether the state has a role at all, or whether the authority to act sits with the collective. The articles give you variables to implement; the principles give you virtues; and the machinery of government works on variables. According to Deb, te Tiriti establishes a diplomatic relationship between two enduring authorities. While both parties agree on most matters, contested issues place them in principled debate – a dynamic in which neither side sets out to defeat or outlast the other. Deb concluded by highlighting what this demands of public servants: a fundamental shift in everyday practice. On genuinely contested matters, officials must learn to navigate ambiguity rather than force resolution, recognising that kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga exist in a state of regular contest and dynamic tension. Her core message was clear: resolution does not require one side to prevail every time. In conclusion Although the speakers did not always agree, what they shared was a refusal to let officials hide in process or comforting fictions. As Helmut Modlik said, “No system can make a people better than they want to be.”

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

FOCUS

The winter issue of Public Sector journal introduced the main methods of deliberative democracy and their place in Aotearoa New Zealand. This article turns to practice, walking through the steps of a citizen’s assembly as they might apply to a real challenge: the future funding of New Zealand Superannuation.

AUTHOR

Finn Shewell

Citizens’ assemblies are best suited to problems requiring difficult trade-offs, affecting different parts of the population in materially different ways, with a track record of intractability. Superannuation has been a looming fiscal problem across successive parliamentary terms, yet no government in 20 years has passed major reform. Any change risks disadvantaging older New Zealanders, while the status quo is considered unsustainable by many for younger generations. However the question is framed, a conscience element is unavoidable. Step 1: Commitment The most critical component of any deliberation is the sponsoring body’s commitment to honour the recommendations, or give a compelling reason why they cannot. Although this obligation is due at the end of the process, it must be made clear at the outset. Whether commissioned by a select committee, royal commission, or Parliament directly, the organisers must understand the gravity of the process, with cross-party support secured from the beginning, or at least a mechanism obliging debate. Establishing the delivery team follows. Independent advisers should support the design, with a separate organisation conducting the sortition. It would be critical to ensure tikanga, mātauranga, and Māori involvement is embedded throughout.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

Step 2: Defining the question Framing the question correctly is a process that can take months. Framing too broadly (How can we ensure New Zealanders age with dignity?) avoids the trade-offs deliberators must confront, and presents a mind-bogglingly large scope. Drawing it too narrowly (Should the pension be means-tested or phased in over several years?) renders the exercise futile by over-constraining the participants in what they can consider. Elected members, officials, engagement professionals, and stakeholders must collaborate to find the ‘Goldilocks’ zone. For present purposes, let’s assume the question is: “How should we fund and structure our retirement income system so that it is fair and sustainable for current and future generations?” Step 3: Awareness and sortition Public awareness of both the problem and the process makes every subsequent step easier, and strengthens the legitimacy of the results. Sortition is central to that legitimacy, ensuring citizens can see themselves represented in the room. Expressions of interest are solicited broadly, using multiple ways of reaching people, before a demographically representative sample is randomly selected. Five stratification factors would serve well here: age, gender, region, ethnicity, and a socio-economic marker. Step 4: Designing the deliberation A cross-disciplinary design team selects experts representing the range of positions, writes digestible briefing materials for participants, and confirms the agenda. An expert panel might include the Treasury on fiscal projections, the Guardians of New

Zealand Superannuation, the Retirement Commission, and a specialist in Māori lifeexpectancy data, among others. Step 5: Convening the assembly Participants receive training in deliberative practice before experts present evidence. Critically, participants can request additional witnesses and pose questions requiring substantial research. Sessions are spaced weeks apart, letting participants absorb material and organisers prepare. National assemblies overseas range from five to six working days split across this time to 15 to 20 in the more complex instances. Step 6: Presenting recommendations Participants then reconvene to determine their recommendations. A supermajority threshold of 80 per cent or higher is a reasonable benchmark, with a minority report ensuring dissenting views remain on record. Participants draft the report themselves and present it to the commissioning body, published simultaneously for transparency.

Step 7: Closing the loop Implementation may take years, and this is where New Zealand has historically struggled: deliberative processes are rated highly by participants and experts alike, only for the decision-making body to falter at the final hurdle. The Auckland assembly cited in the winter issue is instructive. Forty randomly selected residents reached 85 per cent consensus on the future of the Takapuna golf course, aligning with expert advice, council recommendations, and wider community feedback. The local board holding decision-making authority voted against all of it, rejecting an incredibly strong democratic consensus in favour of their own view of what should happen. For a superannuation assembly, this is where the commitment established at step one proves decisive. The issue has remained electorally untouchable for a generation precisely because no party wishes to move first. An undertaking merely to consider

recommendations leaves room for reversal once political pressure intensifies; a written cross-party agreement, or a mechanism obliging Parliament to debate, respond, and act, is a far more durable safeguard. Finn Shewell is a facilitator, community organiser, and advocate for deliberative democracy. He serves on the boards of Sortition Foundation and Trust Democracy, supports the Wellbeing Economy Alliance in their participatory approaches work, and works to educate both the public and publicly elected on the benefits of deliberative approaches. Finn has moderated digital deliberation sessions for Auckland City Council and led co-design processes for organisations across Aotearoa. He holds a BA in Psychology and Marketing from the University of Otago.

Parliament in Practice seminar Parliament in Practice is a one-day seminar offering a unique, behind-the-scenes look at how Parliament operates – delivered by those who work within it and uphold its core responsibilities. 28th October 2026 Te Iho (formerly Bowen House) in Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Wellington

Interested? Check it out

here

“Fabulous presenters…you get to hear from different people in different roles with different perspectives…you really get the whole picture.”

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

INSIGHTS

I am writing as an everyday user of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), drawing on my own experience and perspectives in deciding requests, and advising others. I hope this article shares practical tips that will help other users make confident, well-considered OIA decisions.

AUTHOR

Magnus O’Neill

Most OIA users are familiar with the ability to request official information. Less well known is that the Act also provides three specific rights of access to certain information. These include access to internal rules, reasons for decisions, and personal information about bodies corporate (companies). This article explains the distinction between an ability to request information and a right of access, and the three specific rights contained within the OIA. It offers some tips for officials on how to identify when an information request might engage these rights. An ability to request versus a right of access The purposes of the OIA include enhancing respect for the law and promoting the good government of Aotearoa New Zealand. The Act helps the public stay informed about the government’s activities and to understand the reasons for its actions and decisions. The OIA enables almost anyone with a New Zealand connection to request official information. This includes citizens, permanent residents, anyone currently within New Zealand, New Zealand companies, and overseas companies with a place of business in New Zealand. This broad eligibility to make a request supports the Act’s purpose. But an ability to make a request is not the same as a right of access. In simple terms, a right involves a

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

stronger expectation that information will be made available, and, as such, there are fewer reasons why it may be withheld. For example, the Privacy Act 2020 provides a familiar example of a right of access. One of its purposes is to promote and protect individual privacy by giving individuals the right to access their personal information held by agencies. This language of rights also appears in the OIA. Sections 22 to 24 of the OIA provide rights of access to internal rules, reasons for decisions, and personal information about companies. However, requesters may not reference these sections when making an information request, nor do they need to. Officials must therefore understand these rights of access and be able to identify when a request might engage them. Right of access to internal rules affecting decisions The first right is contained in section 22 of the OIA. It says that a person has a right to access any document that contains policies, principles, rules, or guidelines in accordance with which decisions or recommendations are made. Internal rules must be provided when requested, unless one of the small number of reasons for withholding them exists. This can include situations where releasing the rules would endanger an individual’s safety, or cause harm to certain commercial interests.

An ability to make a request is not the same as a right of access.

This right recognises that people should be able to see the inner rules that officials use when making decisions. Understanding those rules helps people to understand how government decisions are made and how laws and policies are applied in practice. This right may be engaged when the requester seeks to understand how decisions are made, or actions are taken, and/or uses words like ‘policies’, ‘procedures’, or ‘guidelines’ in their information request.

Right of access to reasons for decisions affecting a person The second right is contained in section 23 of the OIA. It applies when an official has made a decision or recommendation that affects the requester. It gives the requester the right to a written statement covering the findings of fact, a reference to the information on which those findings were based, and the reasons for the decision or recommendation. When referring to the information on which the findings were based, officials may withhold

information only in limited situations. This includes where certain information was supplied on a confidential basis, or where release of the information would harm the health of the requester. This right requires the requester to make their request within a reasonable time of the recommendation or decision being made. It is also limited to people affected in their personal capacity. A person cannot request a statement of reasons about a decision that affects someone else.

IMAGE BY JCOMP ON MAGNIFIC

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

INSIGHTS

This right means officials are required to explain their recommendations or decisions when requested. Clear reasons help people understand decisions, assess whether they were fairly made, and decide whether to challenge them. This right may be engaged when a requester is trying to understand why a recommendation or decision was made about them, and/or uses terms like ‘explain why’, ‘clarify why’, or ‘tell me why’ in their information request. Right of access to personal information The third right is contained in section 24 of the OIA. It provides a right to access personal information. Personal information means any official information about an identifiable person. This is a different right from the Privacy Act, which applies to natural persons or living individuals. The OIA right applies to legal persons or, in other words, companies. Before the Privacy Act was introduced in 1993, this section of the OIA provided a right to access personal information for both natural and legal persons. This history explains the similarities between the access rights under the two Acts, and that both allow officials to withhold information only for a limited number of reasons. Companies are an important part of New Zealand’s economy and society. This right under the OIA can be exercised by a company incorporated in, or with a place of business in, New Zealand. It ensures they can access personal information the state holds about them and, alongside their other access rights, better understand how laws affect them, and why recommendations or decisions are made about them. This right may be engaged when a requester appears to be a director of a company or is acting on behalf of a company, such as a lawyer. Why this matters for public servants These rights matter for public servants because they can be directly enforced through the courts, promote good government, and remain important despite changes in technology. These rights can be enforced For general information requests under the OIA, a requester who is unhappy with the response must first complain to the Ombudsman. However, where requests relate to the three rights of access, the requester can skip this step and seek judicial review directly in the High Court.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

Parliament’s intention [is] that these forms of access should operate as legally enforceable rights against the state.

The Court of Appeal has explained that this reflects Parliament’s intention that these forms of access should operate as legally enforceable rights against the state (Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1988] 1 NZLR 385). By properly giving effect to these rights, public servants can help minimise the likelihood of legal action being taken. They support good government For good government to flourish in New Zealand, people should be able to participate in the development of laws and policies that affect them, access information held about them by the state, and understand and challenge decisions made about them. The ability to request information, together with specific rights of access, is foundational to these objectives. Public servants have an important role in identifying when these rights are engaged, and giving effect to them, to support good government. Technology does not change the obligation These rights may become increasingly important as automated decision-making and generative artificial intelligence become more common across the public sector. The obligation to provide access to relevant rules and personal information, and to explain recommendations and decisions, does not disappear because technology contributed to the process or outcome. Public servants must still be able to identify the framework applied, understand the information relied upon, and explain the resulting decision to the individual affected.

The obligation to provide access to relevant rules and personal information, and to explain recommendations and decisions, does not disappear because technology contributed to the process or outcome.

Magnus O’Neill is a public servant, with extensive experience with New Zealand’s official information legislation, having advised ministers and officials in their decision-making, and ombudsmen in their investigation and review functions. Magnus is currently the General Manager of Te Kāhui Kāhu Social Services Accreditation at the Ministry of Social Development. The views expressed in this article are his own.

O B I T U A RY

John Robert Martin, QSO 1936–2026 It is with enormous respect that Hāpai Public bids farewell to John R Martin, a towering figure in the history and analysis of the public sector and public sector management in Aotearoa New Zealand. Born in June 1936, the same year as Hāpai Public (IPANZ) was established, John Martin had two careers, as a public servant and as an academic specialising in public administration and public policy. He excelled in both and used these dual lenses to great effect as a critical friend of the public sector. He served for 35 years as a public servant in a range of government departments. Beginning as a cadet in the old Island Territories Department in 1953 and including a posting to Apia as Clerk of the Samoan Executive Council, his public service career included Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Director of the Planning Council, and Deputy Director General (Administrative) in the Department of Health (now the Ministry of Health). He was highly regarded in his earlier working life for his roles in international trade and economic relations, including several important overseas delegations and postings

in London and Geneva (1961–65) and again in London (1972–75). As a public sector leader, he is remembered for living the public values of integrity, trustworthiness, and political nous. He recognised the need for improvement in both general and financial management in the public sector, but he was critical of much of the reforms of the late 1980s because of the risk he thought they posed to the values of what he knew as the “old public service”. In the late 1980s, John embarked on his second career as an academic at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, specialising in public policy and public sector management. His first formal position was as honorary research fellow in 1988, followed by a lectureship in 1989. He contributed to several postgraduate programmes, especially the Master of Public Policy and the Master of Public Management, eventually formally retiring from the university in 2001, aged 65, but continuing teaching and supervising until 2006. John had a deep passion for, and interest in, public sector management and the role that a high-performing public sector could play in

improving outcomes for all New Zealanders. This practical and intellectual curiosity and expertise can be seen in his many publications: A Profession of Statecraft? (1988), Reshaping the State: New Zealand’s Bureaucratic Revolution (1991), Public Management: The New Zealand Model (1996) and many other articles, books, and presentations on New Zealand’s public sector reforms, including a number for this journal. But it was as the author of the 70th anniversary Spirit of Service: A History of the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand, 1936–2006 that John made a special contribution to Hāpai Public, and to the countless public servants who see public service as a profession. His words remain relevant today and will resonate into the future. “Born in the dark days of the Depression, the Institute has made its way through the disruption of World War II, the stable post-war years, the economic and social challenges of the sixties and seventies, and the reforms of the eighties to the position it now holds; the professional organisation committed to the development and promotion of informed debate and critical analysis … [T]he present members of the Institute can be confident that they are on the same path as the founders, for whom the first objective in the Rules of 1936 was ‘the development of the public service as a recognised profession’.” Vale J R Martin – thank you for telling our story. Your legacy will live on through the profession you supported.

TREASURY SECRETARIES 1979 BACK ROW: JOHN COOK, BILL GREEN, BRIAN TYLER, JOHN MARTIN, DICK BATTERSBY (ASSISTANT SECRETARIES) CLIFF TERRY, DEPUTY SECRETARY; NOEL LOUGH, SECRETARY; STAN MCLEOD, DEPUTY SECRETARY.

Liz MacPherson President, Hāpai Public P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

FOCUS

Aotearoa New Zealand’s public sector is increasingly being asked to manage whole systems rather than individual parts, where one decision ripples across many. A decision about where homes are built affects transport demand, water infrastructure, flood exposure, community services, and long-term public cost. Yet decision-makers are still expected to rely on fragmented evidence, static reports, and siloed views of performance. The decisions facing government are becoming larger, more urgent, and harder to reverse. Infrastructure choices last for decades. Fiscal constraints mean every dollar must work harder. From data to decisions In many cases, much of the data needed to support better decisions already exists. What is often lacking is the ability to connect, interpret, and apply that data to inform decision-making. Real-time digital twins can help close that gap.

AUTHORS

Steph Bradley Mary Kilkelly

What is a digital twin? A real-time digital twin is an integrated, datadriven model of a real-world asset, network, place, or system. It might represent a water network, a transport corridor, a region, or a combination of these. These help decisionmakers test options, understand trade-offs, and model consequences before decisions are locked into the physical world.

how a system behaves. In practice, that means connecting information about assets, demand, capacity, geography, cost, risk, and performance, then using that model to simulate how different parts of the system interact over time. For example, digital twin platforms, such as Deloitte’s Optimal Reality, have been used to model transport networks using historic, simulated, and real-time data, allowing decision-makers to test multiple scenarios before acting in the physical world. The value of a digital twin is making tradeoffs visible. In water, it can show how rainfall, growth, asset performance, and maintenance decisions interact. In transport, it can test how mode-shift policies affect congestion, journey times, and network resilience. The digital twin helps decision-makers test practical ‘what if’ scenarios before problems occur. Beyond the dashboard This is where digital twins differ from traditional reporting. A report can describe a problem. A dashboard can show whether performance is improving or deteriorating. A digital twin can test the possible responses to a problem to guide solution design. It can compare options, reveal second-order effects, and show where an apparently efficient choice in one part of the system may create avoidable cost, risk, or service pressure somewhere else.

Put simply, a dashboard can show what is happening now. A real-time digital twin can help decision-makers understand what could happen next. How it works A real-time digital twin works by bringing together data that is usually held in separate places and turning it into a living model of

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

A dashboard can show what is happening now. A real-time digital twin can help decision-makers understand what could happen next.

A digital twin can test the possible responses to a problem to guide solution design.

Complex systems need more integrated management, which in turn requires better analytical tools. If government is being asked to make more joined-up decisions, it also needs more joined-up evidence. This matters most where the public sector faces its hardest pressures. Government is dealing with more frequent and complex shocks, infrastructure strains, and emergency management demands. Digital twins can test for stress before it arrives: how flooding could affect a water network, how growth could strain transport corridors or healthcare facilities, or where the failure of one asset could cascade across services. Where AI fits Artificial intelligence (AI) can further strengthen this by helping digital twins spot patterns that people may not notice quickly enough. Instead of only testing a small number of ‘what if’ scenarios, AI can help scan for changing conditions and indicate where pressure may be building. Used well, AI doesn’t make the decision for government, but it can help decision-makers ask better questions earlier. This does not replace human judgement, and its output is only as reliable as the data and assumptions behind it. Nor does it create certainty. What it offers is better foresight: helping decision-makers move from reacting after failure towards planning, prevention, and preparedness. The fiscal case In a constrained fiscal environment, public investment cannot be assessed project by project or asset by asset alone. Delaying maintenance may reduce short-term expenditure but increase long-term risk. Investing in resilience may appear expensive until the avoided future damage is properly understood. Digital twins allow options to be tested before money is committed, showing trade-offs between cost, service levels, risk, resilience, and long-term value. Digital twins matter because government is

The goal is not a perfect model of everything. The goal is better evidence for the decisions that matter.

IMAGE BY KJPARGETER ON MAGNIFIC

being asked to make decisions in environments characterised by complexity, risk, and investment choices at a system level. As New Zealand confronts pressures across all infrastructure, it needs better ways of understanding how those systems behave. The goal is not a perfect model of everything. The goal is better evidence for the decisions that matter. Steph Bradley is a Partner in Deloitte’s Infrastructure & Industrials practice, where she leads work at the intersection of AI, simulation, and digital twin technologies. Through Deloitte’s Optimal Reality capability, she helps public sector agencies and infrastructure organisations use digital replicas and simulation-based approaches to address complex planning, operational, and investment challenges. With experience spanning technical delivery, product strategy, and commercial leadership, Steph specialises in translating emerging technologies into practical infrastructure outcomes, helping governments

and asset owners make more informed decisions, improve system performance, and build more resilient infrastructure networks through data-driven insights and advanced simulation. Mary Kilkelly is an Infrastructure Partner at Deloitte New Zealand, with more than 19 years’ experience advising infrastructure clients across New Zealand and globally. Her expertise spans transport, water, and telecommunications infrastructure, with a focus on strategy, investment, transformation, and procurement. Mary works with public sector organisations to improve infrastructure planning, delivery, and asset performance through data-driven decision-making and digital innovation. She has a particular interest in digital twins and connected asset information, helping infrastructure owners leverage technology to optimise operations, inform investment decisions, and deliver more resilient, sustainable outcomes for communities.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

H I S T O RY O F T H E PUBLIC SERVICE

How Aotearoa New Zealand built its independent watchdogs Jim McAloon, Professor of History at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, outlines the history of the three Officers of Parliament, otherwise known as the ‘watchdogs’.

AUTHOR

Professor Jim McAloon

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

There are many ways in which the executive is held to account. Some, like select committees, are internal to Parliament. The judiciary has a role. There are Crown entities, such as the Human Rights Commission. Then there are three Officers of Parliament. These are the Ombudsman, the Controller and AuditorGeneral, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. As the name implies, Officers of Parliament are appointed by Parliament as a whole (Crown entities are appointed by ministers). Recommendations are made by an all-party committee, chaired by the Speaker.

in Western Samoa 1949–60. He had wide discretion to investigate but could only make recommendations. Guy Powles, possessed of legendary courtesy, preferred a low-key but thorough process. Initially the office could only investigate on the basis of a complaint, and when it gained the power to act on its own initiative, this was rarely exercised. The types of state entities that the Ombudsman could enquire into gradually increased. By the end of the 1960s the office was seen as a valuable safety valve and as an effective avenue of last resort, a reputation which Guy Powles’s successors enhanced.

The origins of the Ombudsman The first to be established as such was the Ombudsman. As the power of the state increased after 1935, some liberals were concerned about the balance between the rights of the individual and state power. Recourse to the courts could be expensive and confined to narrow points of law. John Robson, Deputy Secretary of Justice (Secretary from 1960), canvassed the idea of some sort of office to which individuals could appeal against decisions of state agencies. In the National Party, John Marshall (Minister of Justice 1954– 57 and Deputy Prime Minister from 1960) and Ralph Hanan (Minister of Justice from 1960) supported the idea. John Robson was well aware of the Danish model, especially that the Ombudsman was appointed by parliament as a whole rather than the government of the day. The principle and the name were thus imported into New Zealand.

Defining ‘Officer of Parliament’ The concept of ‘Officer of Parliament’, as Bryan Gilling notes in his history of the Ombudsman, developed by experience. The term appeared in the 1962 Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act. The term next appeared in the Wanganui Computer Centre Act 1976, appointing a Privacy Commissioner to monitor access to a centralised law enforcement database. That office was abolished in 1993 as technology evolved.

On 1 October 1962 Guy Powles became the first Ombudsman and was responsible for making the new office work. It helped that he had had a distinguished career as a lawyer and diplomat, notably as High Commissioner

As the power of the state increased after 1935, some liberals were concerned about the balance between the rights of the individual and state power.

Establishing the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment In 1986 the Environment Act established the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), also as an Officer of Parliament. As David Young says in a history of the PCE, this office had an institutional

ancestry. A Commission for the Environment was established in 1972 as the environmental consequences of economic development increasingly became a focus of controversy and public concern. The Commission gained multiple conflicting roles: ministerial adviser, environmental advocate, and independent investigator. As part of the 1984–90 Labour government’s overhaul of environmental law and administration, the Commission’s functions were transferred to new agencies, the PCE continuing those where independence was critical. Like the Ombudsman, the first PCE had to define the office’s role and credibility. Helen Hughes, who held the role from 1987 to 1997, had extensive experience as a botanist and had worked in the old Commission. Like Guy Powles, Helen Hughes relied on patient advocacy backed by impeccable evidence in a sometimes-unsympathetic context. Unlike the Ombudsman, Helen Hughes had freedom to initiate inquiries. The PCE investigates a diverse range of topics. Recommendations are non-binding, so must be well researched, well argued, and timely.

FORMER COMMISSIONERS HELEN HUGHES (1987–1997), DR J. MORGAN WILLIAMS (1997–2007) AND DR JAN WRIGHT (2007–2017), AT A 2007 CELEBRATION OF TWENTY YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY

From government department to Officer of Parliament: The Auditor-General Unlike the other Officers of Parliament, the Controller and Auditor-General’s office originated in the 1840s. Oversight and audit of government accounts and spending were the responsibility of two officers: the comptroller and the auditor (or auditor-general), who merged in 1878. For many decades the office was a government department, under a minister. Auditing the expenditure of central and local government, as David Green and John Singleton note in their history of the Auditor-General, was increasingly complex and time-consuming. Moreover, Treasury also exercised audit functions. While the independence of the Auditor-General was a constitutional convention, with ministerial control there was the potential for awkward situations. In 1978 the incumbent, Fred Shailes, advocated stricter financial management and more attention to outcomes alongside inputs. His successor, Brian Tyler, advocated responsibility to Parliament. Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee recommended elevation to Officer of Parliament in 1989. This was achieved with the Public Audit Act 2001, which also specified that the Auditor-General must ‘from time to time’ audit the accounts a public entity is required to produce, and gave wide powers to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of any public entity, as well as compliance with its statutory obligations. These powers extend to investigating ‘waste’ and ‘a lack of probity or financial prudence’.

COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. COURTESY PCE

These powers extend to investigating ‘waste’ and ‘a lack of probity or financial prudence’.

A model still evolving The roles and responsibilities of the Officers of Parliament have evolved, sometimes in an ad hoc fashion. In 1989 an Officers of Parliament Select Committee was formed to oversee the various independent watchdogs

advising the House. This Committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House, helps ensure a common approach to the position of Officer of Parliament. Among other watchdogs, these officers are distinctive in their responsibility to Parliament and the status this confers. Whether other such officers will be appointed remains to be seen. Jim McAloon is a Professor of History at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. His research and teaching interests include the political and economic history of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Editor’s Note: If you are interested in finding out more about watchdogs, follow the links below to our recorded Hāpai Public ‘Who Are the Watchdogs’ events: Chair of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security The Children’s Commissioner The Controller & Auditor-General Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment The Chief Ombudsman

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

Theatre review Communications professional and former journalist Farheen Hussain reviews Public Service Announcements: Election Meltdown, performed at the Circa Theatre, Wellington. How lucky are we?

AUTHOR

Farheen Hussain

Here we were, in a sold-out theatre, watching the Prime Minister, ministers, opposition politicians, and even journalists get roasted, while in many parts of the world, even democracies, political satire can get you into a lot more trouble than a bad review. Somewhere between the political jabs and dance numbers of Public Service Announcements: Election Meltdown, I felt grateful that here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we can laugh at those in power – and sometimes, they laugh along, too. The first thing that caught my eye when I entered Circa Theatre was the set. There was the Beehive, but burnt down, with bags of rubbish near its doors. I remember looking at it and thinking: Why so post-apocalyptic!

There is Luxon being laser-focused on issues but not necessarily delivering; Labour making everyone wait for its big “ultimate policy”; David Seymour and the hero worship around him; Te Pāti Māori’s relationship with the media; and, of course, the Greens and their very green merch. And then came the dance numbers. Each party gets its own number and dance routine, and they were some of the funniest parts of the show. On the sold-out night I attended, they had the whole theatre applauding (and now I have forced four of my friends to watch it this week. Is it too obvious I liked the show?) A few Kiwi friends I spoke to told me that some earlier versions of Public Service Announcements were even better. There have been 19 over the years, but this was my first one, so I cannot compare.

And then the show explains why! Written by Thom Adams, Jamie McCaskill, and Ruby Vidgen and directed by Carrie Green, Election Meltdown is the latest in the Public Service Announcements political satire series, originally created by James Nokise and Anya Tate-Manning. The story begins with New Zealand facing a crisis: the United States has blockaded Cook Strait. We then meet Anya Tate-Manning’s Christopher Luxon, trying to deal with the situation while also trying to repair his ‘relationship’ with Cohen Holloway’s Winston Peters. One of the best parts of the show is its cast. Cohen Holloway, Kali Kopae, Andrew Paterson, Jamie McCaskill, Brayden Cresswell, and Anya Tate-Manning play a long list of politicians and public figures between them. At one point, they even joke: “We have run out of actors.” Holloway’s Winston Peters was brilliant, and his John Campbell was “maaa-vellous”. I also enjoyed how the writers managed to bring so many current political and policy issues into the show without making it feel heavy. (Did someone say AI in public services?)

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

I also happened to see Green MP Tamatha Paul’s reaction to a clip from the show on Instagram. She said she loved a good roast and would bring some colleagues along. Marama Davidson, too, seemed to enjoy Kali Kopae’s version of her. So, yes, I laughed a lot, but I also felt genuine gratitude for living here. Here in New Zealand, we try not to take ourselves too seriously. Satire, one could argue, has been a long-standing feature of our democracy and is brilliantly on display here in this performance. Farheen Hussain is a Wellington-based communications professional and former journalist with more than a decade of experience covering politics, society, and public policy in India. She holds a Master’s in Global Business from Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington and a Master’s in Political Science and International Relations. Her work spans journalism, strategic communications, and international engagement, with a particular interest in media, public policy, and the stories that shape how people understand the world.

D I D YO U K N OW ?

Did you know? Five fascinating facts about the science our taxes help fund Here are five discoveries happening in Aotearoa New Zealand’s own backyard and funded by the New Zealand Government.

1 2 3

SPACE Rocket Lab’s Electron was the first carboncomposite launch vehicle to reach orbit, and its Rutherford engines were the first fully 3D-printed, electric-pump-fed rocket engines to do so, in part thanks to early government funding. Printing the main components lets engines be built in days rather than months – the trick behind a company founded in New Zealand launching more often than any US operator bar SpaceX. The booster is even partly reusable: it re-enters under a parachute and splashes down in the Pacific, where a ship hauls it out – one refurbished Rutherford engine has already flown a second time. As founder Peter Beck has put it, when government invests time, money, and regulation in the space industry, remarkable things can happen.

CLIMATE CHANGE Over half of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture, so researchers have taken a genetic approach: how much methane an individual animal produces turns out to be a heritable trait. Flocks selectively bred to be low-methane already emit measurably less while staying just as productive.

NATURAL HAZARDS The same seafloor fibre-optic cables that carry our internet traffic can be turned into thousands of virtual seismic sensors, detecting ground motion along their entire length. This offers a way to sense offshore earthquakes and tsunamis from regions where it is impractical to install traditional instruments. The MBIE-funded earthscience programme points to ocean-bottom telecommunications cables and satellite (geodetic) measurements as emerging, cost-effective tools for early warning.

4 5

CONSERVATION One of the biggest non-fisheries threats to the critically endangered Māui dolphin is Toxoplasma gondii – a parasite that reproduces only in cats. It spreads through their faeces, washes off the land and into the sea during rain, and ends up killing dolphins that never come anywhere near a cat. The Department of Conservation now considers it probably the largest non-fisheries threat to the dolphins, and the Government committed $4.88 million to a three-year work programme on it. With only around 54 adult Māui dolphins left, every individual matters enormously – and suburban backyards turn out to be plumbed into the survival of a species found nowhere else on Earth.

HEALTH The government-funded MoST (Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics) trial at Auckland City Hospital offers genomic testing for people with rare cancers, so treatment can be matched to the specific mutations driving a tumour rather than to which organ it started in. For people with rare cancers, who often have almost no standard options, that is a real shot. A distinctly Kiwi twist is geography: researchers are building a satellite-site model using telehealth and local labs, so someone in Northland or rural Canterbury can join a sophisticated genomic trial without moving to a big-city hospital – a clever fusion of high-tech medicine and equity.

P U B L I C S E C TO R S P R I N G 2 0 2 6

Hāpai Public | Institute of Public Professionals Aotearoa New Zealand PO Box 5032, Wellington 6140, New Zealand office@hapaipublic.org.nz hapaipublic.org.nz