Demonstrating success
Kiwis Count
The Kiwis Count[1] survey was conducted in 2007 and 2009. Further assessments of service quality will be conducted in the 2011/14 period. In 2007, New Zealanders' overall quality score for public services was 68. In 2009, there was a small but significant improvement to 69. This improvement, in a fiscally challenging environment, is an achievement for the State Services. The results compare favourably with a similar Canadian research programme Citizens First. The results show a comparable increase in satisfaction in its first two years of operation and demonstrates that our target of a further improvement in service quality is both significant and challenging.
Overall service quality
- Overall service quality (comparison of New Zealand and Canada)
- Source: SSC
The methodology for Kiwis Count was reviewed in 2010/11 following the successful surveys in 2007 and 2009. Starting in 2011, the Kiwis Count biennial point-in-time survey will be upgraded to a continuous survey with fieldwork 50 weeks of the year and quarterly reporting on a six-month rolling average. This more flexible tool can be adapted to meet future needs and changing priorities. Results will be consistent with previous Kiwis Count surveys and Canadian benchmarks.
Public sector expenditure
One of the Central Agencies' measures of success regarding improved State sector performance is for Crown spending to remain consistent with the Government's fiscal and economic growth strategies. The long-term objective is for core Crown expenses to ease to around 30% of GDP. Our intention is to support a return to surplus by controlling the growth in operating expenses so that core Crown expenses fall as a percentage of GDP to around 31% of GDP by June 2015 and current forecasts indicate that we are on track to meet this target.
- Core Crown expenses (excluding losses) to nominal GDP
- Source: The Treasury
Core Crown expenses were 33.8% of GDP at June 2010 and forecast to be 35.2% at June 2011. While core Crown expenses increased over this time as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes, they are forecast to fall to 31.3% of GDP by June 2015.
This decrease reflects the cessation of "one-off" expenditure such as costs associated with the Canterbury earthquakes, provision for weathertight homes payments and the DGS, as well as a decrease in the amount of new spending forecast over this time. The current forecast of core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP in 2015 is lower than the forecast contained in the Half Year Economic and FiscalUpdate (HYEFU). This is primarily as a result of the 2010/11 net savings package and a reduction in new spending in the next two budgets (source: Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2011 [BEFU]).
| Outcome and Intermediate Outcome Indicators and Measures: | Position in 2010/11 |
|---|---|
Outcome: A High-performing State Sector that Supports New Zealand's International Competitiveness |
|
|
Affordability: Core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP are falling over time. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP reduce over the next three to five years. |
Core Crown expenses were 33.8% of GDP at June 2010 and forecast to be 35.2% at June 2011. Over the past decade this ratio had ranged between 29% and 34%. More recently, expenses have risen as a proportion of GDP owing to a number of factors, including the impact on spending and/or GDP from the global financial crisis, domestic recession and policy decisions to increase spending. |
|
Efficiency: Number of State sector employees as a proportion of the working age population is reduced. Target in 2011-16 SOI: The number of State Service[2] employees as a proportion of the labour force is reducing over the next three to five years. |
At June 2010, State Service employees accounted for approximately 225,000 people or about 10% of the total labour force. While as a proportion of the total labour force this figure has not changed significantly over the past decade, approximately 38,000 more people have been employed in the State Services since 2000. |
|
Effectiveness: New Zealand's ranking in the Energy, Transport and Communications Regulation (ETCR) subset of OECD indicators of Product Market Regulation improves. Target in 2011-16 SOI: New Zealand's score and ranking in the ETCR subset of OECD Indicators of Product Market Regulation improves. The Treasury looks at this indicator as a proxy for the effectiveness of government in supporting economic growth. |
New Zealand's network regulation was rated as one of the least restrictive in the late 1990s and the overall rating has changed little since. Many OECD countries have improved their rating and consistency over time. |
|
Public perception of the quality of public services is improving, despite tight fiscal environment. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Kiwis Count quality score for public services will rise from 71 in 2011 to 72 in 2013. (The Treasury's role in State sector management also gives |
The Kiwis Count quality score for public services was 68 in 2007 and 69 in 2009. This will be surveyed again in 2011. |
|
Agencies are demonstrating continuous performance improvement for those undergoing the second cycle of PIF reviews from 2013 onwards. Target in 2011-16 SOI: The proportion of ratings of "strong" or "well-placed" is above 60% for organisational management (so far 50%) and 66% for results (so far 56%). |
PIF has been applied to 14 agencies. An objective of the PIF schedule is to complete reviews for all the major public service agencies by 2013. |
|
Follow-up processes are in place to monitor progress of PIF action plans. Target in 2011-16 SOI: For agencies undergoing the second cycle of PIF reviews from 2013 on, the proportion of ratings of "strong" or "well-placed" is above 60% for organisational management and 70% for results. |
Follow-up processes are in place and being implemented to monitor progress on agencies' strategic responses to their PIF reviews. |
|
State sector reform agenda results in a smaller, sharper set of well-focused and coordinated public agencies with greater contestability of delivery. Target in 2011-16 SOI: State sector reform agenda results in a smaller, sharper set of well-focused and coordinated public agencies and greater contestability in the delivery of public services. |
Decisions have been taken to merge a number of departments, Crown entities and tribunals. Governance arrangements are in place (including an Advisory Group and Secretariat) to drive the next steps in the reform work. |
Intermediate outcome: The State sector allocates resources to where they are most effective and services are delivered in the most efficient way |
|
|
Health, education and income support spending is well-targeted, shifting towards low-income households. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Health, education and income support spending is well-targeted, shifting towards low-income households. |
Real average social spending per household increased over the period 1988/89 to 2006/07. Spending remains weighted towards lower-income households. There has been some increase in the proportion of spending distribution directed to higher deciles over the period 1998/99 to 2006/07 (the latest data available). |
|
Agencies deliver services efficiently and effectively, meeting or exceeding the performance of their international peers. Target in 2011-16 SOI: A selection of indicators shows agencies deliver services efficiently and effectively, meeting or exceeding the performance of their international peers. |
The Treasury will be working on suitable measures during 2011/12. The Treasury measured back office service performance in 33 selected larger departments and Crown entities against international peers and identified opportunities for improvement. |
|
The long-term liability to the Crown associated with the working-age benefit population is accurately measured (by 12 months), used to inform policy (by 24 months) and appropriate targets for reductions in the liability are established and delivery agencies are accountable for the liability (by 36 months). Target in 2011-16 SOI: Progressively, evidence of the costs and benefits of baseline expenditure is built up, with a target set by 2012/13. |
Thirteen percent of the working-age population receiving a benefit; one in five of New Zealand's children in benefit-dependent families (2010 approximate). There were 170,000 people on a benefit for most of the past 10 years; vast majority for reasons other than unemployment (2009 approximate). |
|
All significant new spending proposals are subject to cost benefit analysis. Target in 2011-16 SOI: All significant new spending proposals are subject to cost benefit analysis (or similar). Over the next 12 months the Treasury will develop a methodology and process for gathering this information. This information is currently not systematically collected or published. While not always specifically measuring costs and benefits of expenditure, some evidence will flow through into current decisions. |
There were relatively few new operating expenditure proposals in Budget 2011. Major decisions in Budget 2011, such as changes to KiwiSaver, were based on careful evaluation and cost-effectiveness evidence. Better business cases are now required for charges against the capital allowance. |
|
All new regulatory proposals include assessment of costs and benefits. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Progressively, the stock of regulation is assessed for its costs and benefits; 60% of stock scanned by 2013; 90% of Regulatory Impact Statements meeting most or all Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements by 2013. |
Sixty percent of Regulatory Impact Statements currently meet most or all Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements. Departments scanned the full stock of regulation in 2010, but at a very high level. |
|
Administrative and support services meet or exceed performance of international peers. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Administrative and support services are efficient and effective and they meet or exceed the performance of international peers. Spending on administrative and support services reduces by 15% across the State sector, with equal or improved effectiveness over the next three to five years. |
Departments and Crown Agents (not including DHBs) currently spend 9.8% of their operating running costs on administrative and support services. |
Intermediate outcome: The Crown's balance sheet is managed efficiently and effectively |
|
|
A balance sheet management strategy is in place. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Changes made to the composition of the balance sheet to optimise settings and allocate capital to government priorities. |
The Government's investment intentions have been set out in the Investment Statement, with progress reported in the subsequent Supplement. |
|
Appropriate rates of return and dividends are achieved from the Crown's financial and commercial entities. Target in 2011-16 SOI: Financial performance of the Crown's companies is comparable to private sector benchmarks. Long-term returns of CFIs meeting or exceeding their fund objectives. Appropriate benchmarks around Total Shareholder Return and Dividend Yield developed by December 2011. |
Crown's view on dividend expectations set in letters of expectation to SOEs and past performance reported in Annual Portfolio Report. |
|
Capital asset management practices are enhancing performance. Target in 2011-16 SOI: All capital-intensive agencies considered best practice. Measures of asset performance being in place by 2012 for all the capital-intensive agencies. Measures of asset performance improving over time. |
In July 2010 Cabinet endorsed new CAM rules and expectations. In support of these expectations, the Treasury launched new guidance and support on capital business cases. By year end this methodology was widely understood and accepted across State sector agencies. Latest indications are that agencies are rationalising their capital intentions in response to government policy statements. |
Notes
- [1]www.ssc.govt.nz/nzers-experience
- [2]State Services include public service departments, non-public service departments, Crown entities, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), district health boards (DHBs) and entities on the new Public Finance Act Fourth Schedule (such as Fish and Game Councils). It excludes tertiary education institutions and SOEs.
