Govt refuses to play Nats’ targets game
Political reputations are on the line in the child poverty debate.
They all trumpet the same mantra: ‘‘What gets measured gets done’’.
It makes a politician feel efficient or rather, if they declare it with enough authority, it makes them feel confident that others know they’re efficient.
But what gets measured also sheets back to the ones in charge as accountability if they fall short.
A war is being waged over who measures it best, who gets more done and who has the best interests of New Zealand at heart.
The first shot was the Government’s, when it abolished the Better
Public Service (BPS) Targets. The suite of narrowly defined goals served as ‘‘canary in the coalmine’’ type indicators, forcing public servants to address the drivers behind various issues to achieve the relevant targets.
A goal of reducing rheumatic fever, for example, meant government departments had to address the causes of the Third World disease, including overcrowding and poor housing conditions – otherwise they were never going to reduce illness rates.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has made it clear her Government does not believe these targets were effective, nor does she think holding public officials and ministers personally to account is the positive that National leader Bill English believes it is.
This week Ardern made this comparison of her more general child poverty reduction targets to the Better Public Service targets: ‘‘This is holding a Government to account, we are the ones who are reporting and we are the ones who are driving the wellbeing strategy.’’
That, of course, applies in reverse. English makes the argument that if an entity is responsible, as opposed to an individual, then it’s likely not everything that could be done, will be done. And in the event of failure, there are too many places for individuals to hide.
English sees the axing of the BPS targets as a politically motivated move.
Perhaps it is political; the Government could have kept the framework and made its own set of targets that it believed were better measures of social success.
But it would be blinkered to think the implementation of the BPS targets six years ago wasn’t born out of political ideology either.
The Government is insisting on a clean slate and politically, this makes sense.
In his ‘‘State of the Nation’’ speech this week, English made it clear National would be making sure it holds the Government accountable to National’s measure of success.
Ardern will be damned before she lets her Government fall into the trap of playing National’s game.
What is clear is that Labour’s targets will be more generalised than National’s. Ardern believes drilling down to individual levels risks missing those on the cusp of poverty. What’s not clear, is whose is the best approach ... yet.
As the two major parties struggle for territory on the field, the opening plays carry all the hallmarks of a decider.
Both Governments have staked much of their reputations on reducing poverty and lifting up those most vulnerable. The challenges have remained largely the same over both Governments.
We have National’s stats; we know the gains, we know the failures. In a few years’ time they’ll be compared with Labour’s.
And eventually, we’ll know exactly where the politics of targets got in the way of helping people.
The Government is insisting on a clean slate and politically, this makes sense.