Resilience is coming very much to the fore in the public sector. Resilience refers to the capacity of an organisation or a system to return to full functioning after a shock: whether it be a natural disaster such as an earthquake or one entirely of human devising like the global financial crisis. The Australian and New Zealand School of Government held its annual conference late last month in Wellington, New Zealand, to discuss how governments can best respond to ''challenges posed by events ranging from earthquakes, to tsunamis, to pandemics, to global financial shocks''.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The location in New Zealand was appropriate. The Canterbury earthquakes affecting Christchurch and its surrounding region were a great shock to that country. New Zealand speakers noted that the 2011 earthquake was the third-most damaging and costly such event ever recorded worldwide, and the recovery will remain difficult and challenging. However, the government's capacity to respond and to aid the affected community was helped by its strong budget position. In addition, preparedness is high in New Zealand. It includes mandatory earthquake insurance - though the size of the Canterbury event overwhelmed one insurance company and the government needed to step in. The government also encourages households to prepare themselves with ''72-hour survival kits'' of basic food, torches and other items - though the conference heard the take-up of this campaign has been much higher since the Christchurch earthquake.
For the Australian public sector, there are broader lessons about how we can deal with the unexpected in future. A speaker from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development outlined the findings of its paper Future Global Shocks - Improving Risk Governance, issued last year. It covers major global events that might occur, such as pandemic disease, financial crises and cyberattacks that bring down the world's internet connections.
One potential shock that was new for many in the audience is the threat of a geomagnetic storm, what the OECD describes as ''a type of space weather''. A severe geomagnetic storm could bring down electricity grids, global positioning satellites and other key infrastructure across half the globe. We have not had such a storm recently, but the ''Carrington'' storm in 1859 was ''three times as intense as the most severe geomagnetic storm of the past 30 years''. Back then, the world didn't rely on electricity, IT and communications networks for the functioning of society, and it was more a scientific observation than a natural disaster. A similar event now, however, would cause massive disruption and potentially widespread loss of life.
The conference also discussed country-level events: the Canterbury earthquake, the Victorian fires and the Queensland floods. The key thing was not the disasters themselves but how well government responded and what could be learned for the future. As one speaker noted, it was important not to act ''as if we were in control'' in the face of such risks, but manage them effectively.
Among the most important lessons was the need to build collaborative networks before disaster strikes. Cooperation between different jurisdictions is difficult enough, but cooperation between the public and private sector is even harder. The public sector is often reluctant to invite the private sector into its internal workings. But as shown by recent events, when a disaster occurs, the public sector can't respond on its own. It must work with the private sector in order to manage the huge task involved in re-establishing transport, communications, food and medical supplies, power and other crucial community facilities. If the public sector waits until the disaster strikes before inviting the private sector to collaborate, it is far less effective. If there are already established good working relationships - ones that come not from cursory arm's-length consultation but real collaboration - then the work the different sectors do together after a disaster will be quicker and more effective.
Institutional diversity also has benefits, spreading the burden of service delivery and responsiveness. The OECD has also embraced the diversity principle in its work on risk governance.
One of the most useful presentations, from Professor Paul 't Hart, noted that the social, psychological and strategic impact of shocks was often underplayed. It was important to deal not only with a crisis, but ''the crisis after the crisis'' as systems adjusted. Public servants also needed to get smarter about learning from crises, and adopt some of the practices of ''high-reliability organisations''. These are also known as HROs, though the last thing the public service needs is another three-letter acronym.
My presentation on the resilience of the food supply chain was based on work for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the report is on the department's website). One of the important findings is that the Australian community's safe assumptions that food will always be available are more questionable today due to the massive changes in supply chains and logistics over the past 20 years. A combination of different disasters striking different parts of the supply chain at the same time would put food distribution at risk.
The Wellington location had a further advantage. It allowed many more New Zealanders an opportunity to present and take part than is usual. Their contributions revealed that, in many ways, the New Zealand public sector is more open to change and is adopting more innovation than we see in Australia. This is partly due to necessity and their difficult fiscal position, but also a government determined to set priorities. Prime Minister John Key has announced 10 key results to be achieved over the next five years, and is making public service chief executives accountable for them and measuring their performance. This degree of discipline is a powerful driver of public sector change.
Although New Zealand already has more open government than Australia, there were conference sessions devoted to increasing accountability and transparency. This was important for resilience: social norms are, according to the research presented, surprisingly fragile and a small shock can cause them to break down. A stronger system of disclosure and accountability, together with very strong integrity institutions is a resilience factor.
Even in areas such as joined-up service delivery, which Australia has struggled with for many years, there are promising practices in the New Zealand public sector. Whanau ora (Maori for family health) is a program to deliver health and social services in a wrap-around manner to communities and families. It integrates the work of a number of agencies, and responds to particular needs rather than offering a uniform solution. Although, as one speaker noted, it is new and needs time to demonstrate results, it already seems to be delivering on the ground.
The commitment of New Zealand ministers to better performance in the public sector was demonstrated strongly in ministerial speeches to the conference - but it does not go under the banner of reform. This is in large part due to the New Zealand electoral system, mixed-member proportional, introduced after a referendum in 1993. It produces minority, coalition governments as a matter of course. Governments therefore must build consensus, and the controversial sweeping reforms of the 1980s are a thing of the past. Nevertheless, even if the rhetoric surrounding them is less spectacular, there are lessons to be learned from our near neighbours in public sector management.
Stephen Bartos is the executive director of ACIL Tasman and a former senior public servant.
