Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 455: Parliamentary delegation to New Zealand and Fiji by members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

From 20 to 25 September last year, I led a delegation of three members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to the Republic of Fiji and New Zealand. Over the last two parliaments, the JCPAA has conducted inquiries into the Public Management Reform Agenda and the Commonwealth performance framework. In this context, the committee was interested in visiting New Zealand to gain a better understanding of New Zealand's approach to public sector reform. I would like to speak about New Zealand's approach, which the delegation found very interesting.

Promising better public services is something it seems every government does, and the public are understandably sceptical. However, we were extremely impressed by the reform agenda that New Zealand is pursuing in its public sector, and it was very clear that over the last few years they are managing things much better and more efficiently. The New Zealand government's Better Public Services program lists 10 challenging targets for its public services, including for example: reducing long-term welfare dependence; increasing participation in early childhood education; and increasing infant immunisation and reducing rheumatic fever.

The important thing about these goals is they are not just aspirational and they are not easy to achieve. The government and agency chief executives are jointly accountable for achieving results. Metrics for each target are regularly published and publicly available, and everyone can see whether the outcomes are on track or need attention. This is a simple reform, but it has clarity and a sense of purpose. Many of these goals stretch across multiple government agencies, and there is a strong focus on creating a culture where state services leaders take ownership of the reforms, focus on building customer-focused agencies and collaborate across agency boundaries. The result has been what the State Services Commission of New Zealand, which plays a key role in delivering these results, has called the New Zealand public sector's 'biggest transformation in a generation'.

The second area of interest was the performance improvement framework program. The original idea came from the capability reviews in the UK but has been improved on by New Zealand so that the PIF is forward looking and involves continuous improvement. A PIF is a review of an agency's fitness for purpose today and for the future, looking at how well placed it is to deal with the issues that will confront it in the medium-term future and how an agency can make improvements. The delegation found there was widespread support for the PIF review process, including from parliamentarians, government agency heads, public servants and private sector firms.

The third initiative I would like to highlight is New Zealand's integrated data infrastructure. Statistics New Zealand is working to integrate different data sources to form insights the government needs to improve social and economic outcomes. Statistics NZ's integrated data includes information from a number of agencies that provide things such as health, education and welfare services to the public. Along with tax, employment, and crime data, it also includes Statistics NZ survey data. The integrated data gives a view across government so agencies can deliver better services to the public and ensure investment is made where it is most needed. It has been informed by the private sector approach to data. For example, the Ministry of Education is already developing population projections, building consent data and school enrolment data to work out where new schools will go. By using geospatial population and traffic information, it is possible to work out the best place for a school or hospital so it will be of most benefit to the community as well as cut travel time to get to those places.

These approaches to public sector reform in New Zealand were of particular interest to the delegation. The New Zealand approach is very different from the one in Australia. New Zealand has moved away from a rules based approach to a principle and results based approach. The delegation believed that the Australian government, parliament and public sector bodies could learn from the New Zealand experience, and the committee has made two recommendations in the report. Firstly, that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Public Service Commission examine these reforms in New Zealand and report back to the committee on whether they could be adopted by the Australian Public Service, and, secondly, that the Australian Bureau of Statistics examine the use of data in New Zealand and report back to the committee on whether this approach could be adopted in Australia.

The visits to Wellington and Suva provided committee members with an opportunity to engage with related bodies in these countries, strengthen parliamentary links and gain knowledge and expertise in areas of direct benefit to the committee's current and future work. The delegation concluded the trip with a greater understanding of public sector performance, accountability and reform in both countries.

Finally, on behalf of the delegation, I would like to record our appreciation of the work that went into preparing for the visit, including the various arrangements made by the Australian Parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office, the Office of the Clerk in the New Zealand parliament, and Australia's High Commissions in Fiji and New Zealand. I commend the report to the House.

In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.