Michael Wintringham
State Services Commissioner

I think that more than any other predecessors, this conference has pushed us pretty hard to look at ourselves; how we see ourselves; how that has been shaped by our history; and how that equips us to deal with the future. We're a small democracy in a world that is increasingly comprised of regional blocs at one end and - maybe - growth of community identity at the other.

We're in an economy that has embraced internationalism with some reservations and with some public misgivings. We're carefully engaging in the resolution of property rights covered by a treaty, but we're facing away from some more fundamental questions of sovereignty. We're ambivalent about our role in the Asia-Pacific region, economically, politically, and culturally. That is, if such geographical definition still makes some sense.

Information technology means that conventional notions of time and geographical space are overtaken. Speed of communication; access to information; and instant global communication affect notions of the borders of sovereign states, affect the values and cultures of communities, bypasses geographical barriers and profoundly shapes the way in which we see the world. We don't actually have a name for it, let alone a strategy for dealing with it.

So, pressures come on us from at least three dimensions. They are economic, they're technological, and I've got down here intellectual, but I think it is ideas, rather than some notion of intelligence. They're the modern equivalent, although somewhat less dramatic as the collapse of the Roman Empire and those Viking raids that set the history of Ireland on a particular course.

So what? Well those pressures are the sources of the central policy problems that we face now and which we will be facing over the next five to ten years. They dictate the environment in which we work at the moment and in which we will work over that time.

Is this real? You bet it is. Those of you who work in social policy are, in fact, balancing the pressures of economic globalism with the impact domestically. The client base of the Department of Work and Income will include many facing the consequences of the growth of textile and garment manufacturing in southern China, as much as domestic policy decisions.

Those of you who engage in foreign policy - whether it is security or trade - are inextricably linked to the domestic consequences of the changes that are taking place in the balance of world power; the pattern of international trade; the relative wealth of nations; and the accepted values of international communities.

Don't underestimate the impact of the tastes and demands influenced by information technology. Media and political messages that deliver the world to us immediately - sanitised, pre-packaged, ready-cooked - and ultimately disposable....

In my view that must feed the steadily steepening demand curve of citizens, and their expectations of quality and service. I can't put too strongly that the public policy environment in New Zealand is a crucible of the profound changes happening around us, in the Pacific and in the wider world. And you folks are actually on the edge of that. You're not just delivering outputs against a statement of accountability towards your boss or a purchase agreement with the Minister.

But, there are a couple of potential downsides to this. I personally believe that it carries within it the seeds of social tension. Those who are comfortable with themselves, confident about their place in the world can identify with our nation-building myths, yes, maybe they'll cope with those changes and they'll thrive. Those who cannot, the options are alienation social dislocation.

I think that, second, there is a more intense pressure that comes on us from the governments that we serve. In the public sector we face a demand from citizens and their elected representatives for simple, electorally safe, short-term policies, to what are complex issues often beyond the physical boundaries and the control of national governments.

You've heard it all before, I suppose. But what does it really mean to you and to me. Well the day-to-day business is about some of those things. And I can give you an example that is pretty dear to my heart. Drama about salaries in the Lotteries Commission; who is travelling overseas; what class are they going; they are proxies for alienation, the disparity between those who can enjoy - or in my case tolerate - a business-class trip to the northern hemisphere, and those for whom it is beyond their aspirations.

The political and media response to those issues illustrates the speed of communication and the simple pre-packaging of ideas.

But, under that, as well as the simplistic packaging of ideas, are some more fundamental issues. Now, unless we understand that - unless we understand the drivers and the way they impact the business that we're in - we'll end up providing the wrong answer to the real issues.

But I also want to draw a line about how far we should go, and how accommodating we should be. I said earlier this year in a public statement that some of the media comment about Public Service matters revealed an ugly side to our national character that were so vituperative and personalised that I found them offensive and I despise them. But I relate that back to my earlier comment, how much of that is a result of where we've come from, the mix of pressures that we face, and the alienation, the disparity about our failure to incorporate what is going on out there into part of our national character? Unless we do that, we're running it at our peril.

So the question is are we, in the State sector, ready for the challenges? Well, let me make an aside or two. It has been a tough year in the State sector. There appears to have been more printers' ink spilt on public sector and public management issues than on many other perhaps more fundamental and important issues. It certainly confirmed for me, personally, that I don't agree with the old saw that 'any publicity is good publicity'.

But the Public Service should be in the public eye. Otherwise accountability and responsibility are mere catch-phrases. New Zealanders expect - and rightly - an effective, modest, and ethical Public Service dedicated to improving the lot of New Zealanders and dedicated to service. Well, actually, I think we've got one of those.

We can have a public management system that is among the best in the world. But, to get to that requires us to address - among other things - some of the bad habits enumerated by Graham Scott. But, for God's sake, let's not get out the drafting pad and start again.

In my involvement over the last year, in allegations about the sale of confidential information from the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Work and Income; in golden handshakes for some Crown entity boards; in over-cooked remuneration packages; in inappropriate terms and conditions; and in other areas of the State sector, I have seen nothing that tells me that the model is wrong or that there is something systemic and endemic about which we should be concerned.

I am prepared to say that publicly and I am prepared to say that to the government we have after November 27. The State sector is ready to serve the government of the day with integrity and with skill.

So let me come back to those external pressures and the way they translate into the tensions of our job...

I referred to the complexity of the problems we face versus a drive and a desire for simple solutions.

There is a second aside about the inherent tensions within this job, and you're going to be aware of them, I'm sure. Ministers' requirements for imagination, for leadership, for innovation with full early-warning and zero risk. The fundamental tension between good management, referred to I think this morning by Simon Upton, that is about the most effective use of your resources, the tension between that, and the realities of the political environment. Your inputs are a factor of production. They're also a source of political and public interest. That applies to the class of travel; to the cost of a conference; to the process used for hiring of consultants. And we forget that at our peril.

There is also another tension, or at least an overly-simplistic view about respective roles. Ministers: their job is about political leadership. Our job is concerned with good management. There is a neat divide between the two. Nonsense.

Ministers answer questions in Parliament about the management of their departments. They have an interest in making the dollars go as far as possible. And your management decision has the potential to be the Minister's scandal.

So the trick is to strike the balance and recognise the reality of the relationships as opposed to the details of the accountability documentation.

I think that something that Graham Scott picked up, at the end, is part of the bigger tension between centralism and decentralisation. That tension underpins the debates on management of IT projects; the governance arrangements for Crown entities; the role of local and central government; the place of private providers in welfare delivery; and the constant shifting of power that is probably moving more often and faster than we realise.

I mentioned central and local government, and we have hardly touched upon that. The pressures which come from having a fast-growing urban centre in Auckland that is increasingly separated - in attitude and in terms of opportunity - from the provincial centres, affects most of us here. It has an impact on the way in which public services are delivered nationally, the structure of local government, and the provision of infrastructure such as roading.

The tensions seem even more daunting given the kind of uncertainty - the kind of complexity, the kind of diversity - which is obvious from today's presentation. Is all this too chaotic? Is it all too much?

Remember last year we talked about being on the edge; I don't think we're over it. I'm not sure that it's not crumbling at some points. But remember last year we said that at the edge of uncertainty lies creativity. One commentator on structure and organisational behaviour made the comment that instability is the norm. If we assume that our system should be stable, we guarantee failure.

For me, that underpins the futility of looking for 'the next big idea' as the response to the signs that there are tensions, the need for adaptation, and the need for change. The risk is that through trying to find the optimal structure; the best system; the perfect governance arrangement; the easy answer, we stifle rather than enhance creativity.

So what do we take away from today? This is the third time I've made closing comments at one of these. This has been the most difficult. But, I decided to listen to my own message and try to keep it simple.

Three messages. First, your business lies at the crucible of profound change. You may not agree with it, but think about it, and use the metaphors of Ireland and Scotland as a context for thinking about the connections between what you do each day for your client, for the Minister, or for the citizen, and the forces - economic, technological, cultural - which shape their reaction to you.

If you don't have a way of hooking on to these you will be hard-pressed to make effective connections with either.

My second message is to those who deal more directly with Ministers. If it is the role of a politician to take complex, conflicting, and diverse demands, to find them and package them in a way which promotes consensus and a degree of social coherence, then it is our job as public servants, particularly in policy ministries, to help and support that process.

That requires exchanges with governments that are open and trusting, and it means that we have to be prepared to walk the line between the overt political agenda of the government of the day and the need for us - the absolute need - never to compromise our ability to serve whatever government is in power. It is our job to be a bridge between the complexity of the problem and the demand for the simple solution.

That doesn't mean writing party political statements. But equally it doesn't mean interminable analysis, the quest for the perfect framework, and proposing solutions beyond public and political tolerance.

On a caution, despite some of Simon Upton's warm comments, I do see from time to time, and more than I should, non-communication between Ministers and senior advisers on either side of the chasm, unable to bridge that gap.

Finally, change will be the norm. The only difference now is perhaps the scale and the source of that change.

We have confronted major social and economic change before in this century at least twice, and probably more often than that. And, actually, we've performed in a way of which we can be proud.

As in the 1930s and 1980s, effectiveness means the requirement to take some risks. That can be a bit scary. But I encourage you to take the risks and to seize the opportunities. I can give you one commitment about that. Make your best judgement, give it your best shot, do it for the right reason, always behave with integrity, and I will stand up for you, with Ministers, with politicians, and with the public as required.

I will end with three thank yous. For Karen and her steering group and those who supported the conference today; for the presenters for the richness and diversity of their contributions; and you, not so much for your attendance here but for the support that you've given me. It is a privilege to do this job, but more so, because of you and your colleagues. Thank you.