Final report

Approximately one in five New Zealanders (18.2% or 697,000) experienced persistent disadvantage in one or more domains in both 2013 and 2018. Around one in twenty New Zealanders (4.5% or 172,000) experienced complex and multiple forms of persistent disadvantage (in two to three domains). 

The cycle of persistent disadvantage experienced by too many cannot be ignored, or tolerated as inevitable, or put off till another day, or accepted as too difficult to change. The costs are borne by all – individuals, families, whānau, businesses, communities, government and our nation. Equally, we all stand to gain when this cycle of persistent disadvantage is broken. 

A central finding of this inquiry is that people experiencing disadvantage and those trying to support them are restricted by powerful system barriers. For decades the public management system has been grappling with a siloed and fragmented government with a short-term focus. 

Outside the public management system, power imbalances, discrimination, and the ongoing impact of colonisation create the main drivers for both advantage and disadvantage in Aotearoa New Zealand. 

Social, economic, health and other conditions, along with life and past events can make people more vulnerable to persistent disadvantage. Support to manage or overcome these conditions might come from whānau, communities or the government, or from all these places. The goal for the system needs to be that all people can get what they need to live a better life. 

In Aotearoa New Zealand, persistent disadvantage continues despite repeated reviews that call for changes in policymaking and service design.  

These challenges have been discussed in a variety of studies that have examined Aotearoa New Zealand’s policymaking approach and system settings.  

There is often a narrow focus on economic growth and material prosperity that even non-material aspects of wellbeing, such as health and life satisfaction, flow from increased individual and national prosperity, often measured using Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  

A “western” approach is prioritised over indigenous and/or more diverse views of wellbeing, which results in a focus on the individual when it comes to policy action. In contrast, He Ara Waiora and the All-of-Government Pacific Wellbeing Strategy emphasise a more collective and intergenerational perspective on economic and community activity.  

The siloed and fragmented nature of the current public management system means that decisions in one part of government may undermine efforts in another part to improve wellbeing.  

The focus on short-term outcomes is reflected in the Budget process, which focuses on the next four years of funding, and in agency statements of intent and reporting cycles, which are often shorter. Investment decisions give greater weight to short-term benefits and costs, relative to the needs of future generations.  

Multiple challenges at the same time often happen to people experiencing persistent disadvantage, but the system attempts to solve issues through individual agencies – each focusing on doing their job well, but working in isolation.  

Individuals, families, whānau and communities most in need must be given more consideration in the impacts of policies and programmes, so they get the attention and resources they require.  

Although Aotearoa New Zealand was an early adopter of wellbeing measurement frameworks and the introduction of a Wellbeing Budget, the current wellbeing approach leans heavily on measurement and lacks true integration into the public management system. Key assumptions underlying the system are hampering the implementation of a fully integrated wellbeing approach.  

Current accountability and funding settings limit the growth of more effective and responsive approaches to helping people and whānau experiencing persistent disadvantage.  

We identified three critical gaps in the accountability system: 

• weak direct accountabilities for ministers and the public service in addressing persistent disadvantage and the needs of future generations;
• the neglect of te Tiriti o Waitangi (te Tiriti) as a foundational constitutional document; and
• settings that prevent ongoing learning and more innovative and effective ways of addressing persistent disadvantage, including relational, collective and trust-based approaches. 

These gaps show an overemphasis on preventing abuse of power and focusing on “delivery” rather than results. They also reveal settings that are out of sync with the intent of other public sector reforms to the Public Service Act 2020 and Public Finance Act 1989, particularly those around the provision of more modern, connected, citizen-focused public services.  

Locally led, whānau-centred and centrally enabled approaches can provide move effective and responsive assistance to individuals, families and whānau experiencing persistent disadvantage.  

Policy work is needed to redesign accountability settings to ensure appropriate use of public funds do not prevent the cross-cutting nature of locally led, whānau-centred approaches.  

We acknowledge there are a range of existing whānau-centred approaches to improving wellbeing and give direction setting and decision-making opportunities to local communities. Central government needs to take a stronger role to build enduring support (including funding) for these initiatives.  

To break the cycle of persistent disadvantage, the public management system needs to become a ‘learning system’ by: 

• understanding the lived realities of individuals and whānau experiencing persistent disadvantage and what matters to them; 
• enabling ongoing learning-by-doing to find out what works to reduce persistent disadvantage;
• supporting a system to learn, decide and act together at different levels; 
• providing a strong leadership and stewardship function to create a mandate for the learning systems shifts required and to support central government to enable more of what works.