Consensus-Building
#8Key Findings
New Zealand performs well in international comparison (rank 8) in the category of consensus-building.
Governments rely on expert advisory groups, researchers and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser for insights on policy. However, they are not required to follow scientific advice.
Capital and labor groups are involved in policymaking through several institutionalized consultation mechanisms including select committees, public consultations and the Future of Work Tripartite Forum. The frequency of such engagement varies depending on the government in power.
The government has similar mechanisms to consult with social welfare groups. In some cases policymakers have ignored high-profile recommendations. Environmental groups have influenced policy especially through courts or public protest. The government has a strong commitment to transparency, publishing regular reports and maintaining open data portals.
Governments rely on expert advisory groups, researchers and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser for insights on policy. However, they are not required to follow scientific advice.
Capital and labor groups are involved in policymaking through several institutionalized consultation mechanisms including select committees, public consultations and the Future of Work Tripartite Forum. The frequency of such engagement varies depending on the government in power.
The government has similar mechanisms to consult with social welfare groups. In some cases policymakers have ignored high-profile recommendations. Environmental groups have influenced policy especially through courts or public protest. The government has a strong commitment to transparency, publishing regular reports and maintaining open data portals.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
Various institutional mechanisms exist that allow governments to harness scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes. Governments have established expert advisory groups comprising scientists, researchers and subject matter experts to provide insights and recommendations on specific policy areas. Additionally, government agencies regularly commission research, studies and data collection to inform policymaking, often collaborating with research institutions, universities and scientific organizations to gather relevant information. The prime minister also has access to the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser (PMCSA), which convenes the Chief Science Adviser Forum and provides advice on how science can inform policy design.
The transparency of the consultation process varies based on the nature of the consultation. For example, while reports produced by expert advisory groups are generally made publicly available, research studies commissioned by government agencies are published less frequently.
It is important to note that the government is not obligated to follow scientific advice. Frequently, governments choose to disregard expert recommendations – even those produced through formal institutional mechanisms, such as expert advisory groups. For instance, the Labour government under Ardern and Hipkins dismissed the idea of a capital gains tax, contrary to the recommendations of its own Tax Working Group (Coughlan 2023). Similarly, environmental policy has yet to reflect the recommendations made by the Climate Change Commission (Neilson 2023) – an outcome that seems even less probable under the conservative coalition government.
Another problem is that, because of New Zealand’s comparatively small population, the pool of non-governmental experts is relatively small, limiting the range of perspectives that can be brought to the policymaking process. This outsourcing of analysis and advice has sometimes led to an overreliance on corporations rather than on independent research experts (Edwards 2023).
Citations:
Coughlan, T. 2023. “Election 2023: Chris Hipkins Confirms He Killed $10b Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax in Budget.” New Zealand Herald, July 12. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-chris-hipkins-confirms-he-killed-wealth-tax-capital-gains-tax-in-budget/LZNZMSBEBNEQFHUSJKP4637TIA
Edwards, B. 2023. “Time for a Big Debate About Government Use of Business Consultants.” 10 February. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/bryce-edwards-time-for-a-big-debate-about-govt-use-of-business-consultants/WRFGYFZGRZC2RFLIOPA2VEZJUY
Neilson, M. 2023. “Climate Change Commission: Too Much Reliance on Forestry, Calls for More Renewable Energy, Electric Vehicles and Limits on Gas in Buildings.” New Zealand Herald, April 26. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/climate-change-commission-too-much-reliance-on-forestry-calls-for-more-renewable-energy-electric-vehicles-and-limits-on-gas-in-buildings/NIWQZ7COUVCWNEYP34OQ5BZD5E
The transparency of the consultation process varies based on the nature of the consultation. For example, while reports produced by expert advisory groups are generally made publicly available, research studies commissioned by government agencies are published less frequently.
It is important to note that the government is not obligated to follow scientific advice. Frequently, governments choose to disregard expert recommendations – even those produced through formal institutional mechanisms, such as expert advisory groups. For instance, the Labour government under Ardern and Hipkins dismissed the idea of a capital gains tax, contrary to the recommendations of its own Tax Working Group (Coughlan 2023). Similarly, environmental policy has yet to reflect the recommendations made by the Climate Change Commission (Neilson 2023) – an outcome that seems even less probable under the conservative coalition government.
Another problem is that, because of New Zealand’s comparatively small population, the pool of non-governmental experts is relatively small, limiting the range of perspectives that can be brought to the policymaking process. This outsourcing of analysis and advice has sometimes led to an overreliance on corporations rather than on independent research experts (Edwards 2023).
Citations:
Coughlan, T. 2023. “Election 2023: Chris Hipkins Confirms He Killed $10b Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax in Budget.” New Zealand Herald, July 12. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-chris-hipkins-confirms-he-killed-wealth-tax-capital-gains-tax-in-budget/LZNZMSBEBNEQFHUSJKP4637TIA
Edwards, B. 2023. “Time for a Big Debate About Government Use of Business Consultants.” 10 February. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/bryce-edwards-time-for-a-big-debate-about-govt-use-of-business-consultants/WRFGYFZGRZC2RFLIOPA2VEZJUY
Neilson, M. 2023. “Climate Change Commission: Too Much Reliance on Forestry, Calls for More Renewable Energy, Electric Vehicles and Limits on Gas in Buildings.” New Zealand Herald, April 26. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/climate-change-commission-too-much-reliance-on-forestry-calls-for-more-renewable-energy-electric-vehicles-and-limits-on-gas-in-buildings/NIWQZ7COUVCWNEYP34OQ5BZD5E
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
Capital and labor are involved in the policymaking process through general institutionalized mechanisms for consultation. Select committees and government departments often hold public consultations and hearings, and invite submissions from stakeholders on topics related to specific pieces of legislation. Furthermore, the government conducts regulatory impact assessments before implementing regulations or policies, which involves consultations to evaluate the potential effects on stakeholders and the public. The government may also set up working groups to address specific policy issues by bringing together representatives from relevant sectors. For example, the Labour government under Ardern established a working group comprising business and trade union representatives to draw up the framework for the Fair Pay Agreements bill (Cooke 2022a).
In addition, there are specific institutional mechanisms to facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking, perhaps the most significant being the Future of Work Tripartite Forum, convened by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) and MBIE also offer mediation and arbitration services, providing a neutral platform for negotiation and resolution between employers and employees.
The frequency of engagement between government officials and representatives from capital and labor varies based on the nature of ongoing discussions and the political orientation of the parties in power.
The government plays a significant role in moderating disputes between labor and capital, although the extent of success can depend on several factors, such as the complexity of the issues and the willingness of stakeholders to engage in resolution processes. The Fair Pay Agreements bill is an example of failed dispute moderation: BusinessNZ – New Zealand’s largest employers’ representative – began to boycott the consultation process in 2022, hoping for a change in government in 2023 (Cooke 2022b).
Citations:
Cooke, H. 2022. “Government introduces Fair Pay Agreements bill, will exclude contracts, allow regional differences.” Stuff, March 29. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300553017/government-introduces-fair-pay-agreements-bill-will-exclude-contracts-allow-regional-differences
Cooke, H. 2022. “New Zealand has just passed a law that will revolutionise workers’ rights. It probably won’t last.” The Guardian, October 28. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/29/new-zealand-has-just-passed-a-law-that-will-revolutionise-workers-rights-it-probably-wont-last
In addition, there are specific institutional mechanisms to facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking, perhaps the most significant being the Future of Work Tripartite Forum, convened by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) and MBIE also offer mediation and arbitration services, providing a neutral platform for negotiation and resolution between employers and employees.
The frequency of engagement between government officials and representatives from capital and labor varies based on the nature of ongoing discussions and the political orientation of the parties in power.
The government plays a significant role in moderating disputes between labor and capital, although the extent of success can depend on several factors, such as the complexity of the issues and the willingness of stakeholders to engage in resolution processes. The Fair Pay Agreements bill is an example of failed dispute moderation: BusinessNZ – New Zealand’s largest employers’ representative – began to boycott the consultation process in 2022, hoping for a change in government in 2023 (Cooke 2022b).
Citations:
Cooke, H. 2022. “Government introduces Fair Pay Agreements bill, will exclude contracts, allow regional differences.” Stuff, March 29. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300553017/government-introduces-fair-pay-agreements-bill-will-exclude-contracts-allow-regional-differences
Cooke, H. 2022. “New Zealand has just passed a law that will revolutionise workers’ rights. It probably won’t last.” The Guardian, October 28. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/29/new-zealand-has-just-passed-a-law-that-will-revolutionise-workers-rights-it-probably-wont-last
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
While various institutional mechanisms exist to involve social welfare CSOs in the policymaking process, such as formal consultation processes, public submissions and working groups, it is ultimately up to the government to decide whether to utilize these mechanisms.
The Labour governments under Ardern and Hipkins (2017 – 2023) followed a policy agenda that prioritized social welfare and regularly engaged with relevant CSOs. For example, they worked through the Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Group, set up within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2018, and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, which was launched in 2021. Labour also established the Welfare Expert Advisory Group in 2018, which includes representatives from CSOs involved in social welfare.
The Ministry for Women also collaborates with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, an independent advisory body established in 1967. This council regularly advises the minister for women on matters regarding women’s employment and has done so since the Ministry’s establishment in 1985.
Engagement in the policymaking process does not guarantee that governments will act on consultations with social welfare CSOs. One illustrative example is the Labour government failing to implement any of the 42 “urgent” recommendations put forward by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group in its 2019 Whakamana Tāngata: Restoring Dignity to Social Security report (Neilson 2023).
The new National-led coalition under Luxon has announced plans to roll back social welfare programs (Cheng 2023). Consequently, government engagement with social welfare CSOs in the policymaking process is expected to decrease significantly.
Citations:
Cheng, D. 2023. “Election 2023: Child poverty at issue as National, Labour vie over fiscal holes, welfare changes.” New Zealand Herald, September 30. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-child-poverty-at-issue-as-national-labour-vie-over-fiscal-holes-welfare-changes/2T6Q2AMNJ5AWHJFSVUVUL34ZQI/
Neilson, M. 2023. “WEAG Welfare Overhaul Update, Govt Defends $14.6b Programme While Anti-poverty Campaigners Say ‘Woefully Slow.’“ New Zealand Herald, March 21. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/weag-welfare-overhaul-update-govt-defends-146b-programme-while-anti-poverty-campaigners-say-woefully-slow/HYL5CB5O7ZHFXMBQDQHG2E4N34/
The Labour governments under Ardern and Hipkins (2017 – 2023) followed a policy agenda that prioritized social welfare and regularly engaged with relevant CSOs. For example, they worked through the Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Group, set up within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2018, and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, which was launched in 2021. Labour also established the Welfare Expert Advisory Group in 2018, which includes representatives from CSOs involved in social welfare.
The Ministry for Women also collaborates with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, an independent advisory body established in 1967. This council regularly advises the minister for women on matters regarding women’s employment and has done so since the Ministry’s establishment in 1985.
Engagement in the policymaking process does not guarantee that governments will act on consultations with social welfare CSOs. One illustrative example is the Labour government failing to implement any of the 42 “urgent” recommendations put forward by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group in its 2019 Whakamana Tāngata: Restoring Dignity to Social Security report (Neilson 2023).
The new National-led coalition under Luxon has announced plans to roll back social welfare programs (Cheng 2023). Consequently, government engagement with social welfare CSOs in the policymaking process is expected to decrease significantly.
Citations:
Cheng, D. 2023. “Election 2023: Child poverty at issue as National, Labour vie over fiscal holes, welfare changes.” New Zealand Herald, September 30. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-child-poverty-at-issue-as-national-labour-vie-over-fiscal-holes-welfare-changes/2T6Q2AMNJ5AWHJFSVUVUL34ZQI/
Neilson, M. 2023. “WEAG Welfare Overhaul Update, Govt Defends $14.6b Programme While Anti-poverty Campaigners Say ‘Woefully Slow.’“ New Zealand Herald, March 21. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/weag-welfare-overhaul-update-govt-defends-146b-programme-while-anti-poverty-campaigners-say-woefully-slow/HYL5CB5O7ZHFXMBQDQHG2E4N34/
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
Environmental CSOs have historically achieved notable successes in shaping environmental policy. However, these successes were primarily achieved through legal means (e.g., by bringing claims before the Waitangi Tribunal) or through direct protest action and civil disobedience (Kurian et al. 2022). Formal institutional mechanisms designed to involve CSOs in the policymaking process – such as public consultations, submissions or working groups – have been less important avenues for influencing environmental policy outcomes.
Governments have employed institutional mechanisms to engage with CSOs on environmental policy. For example, the Labour-led coalition under Ardern actively involved environmental CSOs in developing and drafting the Zero Carbon Act. Passed in 2019, the Act sets a framework for New Zealand to transition to a low-emission, climate-resilient future.
Formal consultation mechanisms do not guarantee that input from civil society organizations (CSOs) will be adequately considered or implemented. For instance, during the drafting of the Zero Carbon Act, environmental CSOs like Greenpeace expressed concerns about setting softer reduction goals for dairy and agricultural gases such as methane. These concerns were ignored by the government (Morton 2018).
Citations:
Kurian, P. et al. 2022. “Social Movements and the Environment.” In J. L. MacArthur and Maria Bargh, eds., Environmental Politics and Policy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Morton, J. 2018. “Greenpeace Want Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Carbon Act.” New Zealand Herald, June 7. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/greenpeace-want-agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-carbon-act/VSRXUTAN4TF76VUXD6IGFL3CXE/
Governments have employed institutional mechanisms to engage with CSOs on environmental policy. For example, the Labour-led coalition under Ardern actively involved environmental CSOs in developing and drafting the Zero Carbon Act. Passed in 2019, the Act sets a framework for New Zealand to transition to a low-emission, climate-resilient future.
Formal consultation mechanisms do not guarantee that input from civil society organizations (CSOs) will be adequately considered or implemented. For instance, during the drafting of the Zero Carbon Act, environmental CSOs like Greenpeace expressed concerns about setting softer reduction goals for dairy and agricultural gases such as methane. These concerns were ignored by the government (Morton 2018).
Citations:
Kurian, P. et al. 2022. “Social Movements and the Environment.” In J. L. MacArthur and Maria Bargh, eds., Environmental Politics and Policy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Morton, J. 2018. “Greenpeace Want Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Carbon Act.” New Zealand Herald, June 7. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/greenpeace-want-agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-carbon-act/VSRXUTAN4TF76VUXD6IGFL3CXE/
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
New Zealand’s government has a relatively strong commitment to transparency and regularly publishes data and information to empower citizens to hold the government accountable. Several initiatives contribute to this effort: open data portals maintained by various government departments, publication of reports and other information on official websites, and the Official Information Act (OIA), which enables citizens to request official information held by government agencies. Proactive release of materials via departmental websites has also increased, although sometimes with considerable redaction and without notification.
In the latest Open Government Index published by the World Justice Project, New Zealand is tied for second place out of 102 countries, trailing only Sweden (World Justice Project n.d.). However, New Zealand scores lower in the Open Data Barometer, released by the World Wide Web Foundation, where it shares seventh place. This ranking highlights that data availability is not consistent across government sectors and is particularly weak in the area of government spending (World Wide Web Foundation 2017).
New Zealand’s position is also lower in the OECD OURdata Index on Open Government Data, where it is ranked 12th out of 32 countries. Nevertheless, New Zealand’s score for ensuring public sector data availability and accessibility is still higher than the OECD average. Additionally, new processes are in place to ensure data sovereignty, increasing social license for data collection and supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. For Māori, data is seen as a taonga (sacred), something that cannot be shared without consultation and essential protections of knowledge for past, present and future generations.
The Labour-led coalition affirmed its commitment to the Open Government Partnership – a global initiative to improve government transparency – and sought to make data more accessible through its Fourth National Action Plan. However, a recent independent review notes that only three of the eight commitments made in the document “envision promising reforms” (Open Government Partnership 2023). There has also been new policy work within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to support more openness and communication around the development of bi, multi and plurilateral trade agreement processes.
Citations:
OECD. 2019. “OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/policy-paper-ourdata-index-2019.htm
Open Government Partnership. 2023. “New Zealand Action Plan Review 2022-2024.” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/new-zealand-action-plan-review-2022-2024/
World Justice Project. n.d. “Open Government Around the World.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/open-government-around-world
World Wide Web Foundation. 2017. “Open Data Barometer: New Zealand.” https://opendatabarometer.org/country-detail/?_year=2017&indicator=ODB&detail=NZL
In the latest Open Government Index published by the World Justice Project, New Zealand is tied for second place out of 102 countries, trailing only Sweden (World Justice Project n.d.). However, New Zealand scores lower in the Open Data Barometer, released by the World Wide Web Foundation, where it shares seventh place. This ranking highlights that data availability is not consistent across government sectors and is particularly weak in the area of government spending (World Wide Web Foundation 2017).
New Zealand’s position is also lower in the OECD OURdata Index on Open Government Data, where it is ranked 12th out of 32 countries. Nevertheless, New Zealand’s score for ensuring public sector data availability and accessibility is still higher than the OECD average. Additionally, new processes are in place to ensure data sovereignty, increasing social license for data collection and supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. For Māori, data is seen as a taonga (sacred), something that cannot be shared without consultation and essential protections of knowledge for past, present and future generations.
The Labour-led coalition affirmed its commitment to the Open Government Partnership – a global initiative to improve government transparency – and sought to make data more accessible through its Fourth National Action Plan. However, a recent independent review notes that only three of the eight commitments made in the document “envision promising reforms” (Open Government Partnership 2023). There has also been new policy work within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to support more openness and communication around the development of bi, multi and plurilateral trade agreement processes.
Citations:
OECD. 2019. “OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/policy-paper-ourdata-index-2019.htm
Open Government Partnership. 2023. “New Zealand Action Plan Review 2022-2024.” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/new-zealand-action-plan-review-2022-2024/
World Justice Project. n.d. “Open Government Around the World.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/open-government-around-world
World Wide Web Foundation. 2017. “Open Data Barometer: New Zealand.” https://opendatabarometer.org/country-detail/?_year=2017&indicator=ODB&detail=NZL