Part 4: Public organisations' support for whānau-centred approaches

How well public organisations are supporting Whānau Ora and whānau centred approaches.

In this Part, we discuss:

In 2018, the Whānau Ora ministerial review noted that whānau-centred approaches could be applied more widely throughout government. The review also said that public organisations lacked an understanding of them, which affected how well they were supported and implemented. In response, Te Puni Kōkiri changed its strategic focus areas to include broadening whānau-centred approaches throughout the public sector.

We wanted to understand what public organisations have done to better understand, support, and implement whānau-centred approaches. To support the aims of Te Puni Kōkiri, we expected that public organisations would:

  • seek to improve their understanding of whānau-centred approaches and how they can support and implement these approaches;
  • adapt their systems, processes, and practices to better enable whānau-centred approaches;
  • work together to integrate and co-ordinate services for whānau;
  • make use of monitoring, evaluation, and research information to improve service delivery and help create positive changes for whānau; and
  • understand and take action to address systemic barriers to supporting and implementing whānau-centred approaches.

Summary of findings

Some public organisations are starting to take whānau-centred approaches to their work. However, much of this work involves trialling small-scale, time-limited initiatives. Although we saw positive intent from some public organisations, we did not see a significant shift towards supporting or implementing whānau-centred approaches. We also did not see systematic consideration of where and when whānau-centred approaches may be appropriate.

Processes and practices that can hinder implementing or supporting whānau-centred ways of working need to be addressed (such as working in siloes, overly prescriptive contracts, and onerous reporting requirements). A team in the Ministry of Social Development is leading work to embed a relational approach to commissioning throughout the social sector that could help address these barriers.

Ongoing work to improve the public finance system and new expectations in the Public Service Act 2020 could also assist with system-level barriers.

Understanding of whānau-centred approaches is mixed

Public organisations are aware of Whānau Ora and broadly understand why it was set up and what it seeks to achieve. Some staff at public organisations also understand the distinctions between whānau ora as an outcome, whānau-centred approaches, and Whānau Ora.

However, we also heard that others were not familiar with whānau-centred approaches.

Some public organisations have worked with Te Puni Kōkiri to incorporate whānau-centred approaches into their specific initiatives and services. For example:

  • Te Puni Kōkiri worked with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the vision and outcomes framework for the Māori Employment Action Plan. This resulted in the plan incorporating a long-term, holistic, and intergenerational view of wealth creation and recognising the importance of matters such as housing and health.
  • The Department of Corrections worked closely with Te Puni Kōkiri on taking a whānau-centred approach to Paiheretia Te Muka Tāngata (which is part of the Department's Māori Pathways programme).
  • A Te Puni Kōkiri secondee assisted the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet with documenting evidence on whānau-centred and community-led approaches and the opportunity for these approaches to be better supported through the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy.

Te Puni Kōkiri intends to highlight its work with the Department of Corrections and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as examples of whānau-centred approaches that other public organisations can learn from. This is encouraging.

We heard mixed views about how much information public organisations are seeking about whānau-centred approaches. Te Puni Kōkiri told us that public organisations are increasingly asking for advice and guidance when they develop initiatives.

Some of the staff in public organisations we spoke with were not aware of having received any advice from Te Puni Kōkiri about whānau-centred approaches or Whānau Ora. They acknowledged that they had not sought advice from Te Puni Kōkiri either.

Some staff in public organisations have participated in provider-led whānau ora training throughout the country.

We found that, in some instances, providers are leading the way and urging public organisations to invest in whānau-centred initiatives and services.

For example, Te Tihi o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliance (Te Tihi) is an alliance of nine iwi/Māori providers who collectively provide leadership and guidance, and service whānau throughout Tararua, Palmerston North, Manawatū, and Horowhenua. Te Tihi has worked closely with public organisations by helping to bring them on board, building strong relationships, and developing their understanding of the value of whānau-centred approaches.

This has enabled Te Tihi to drive shared initiatives such as Kāinga Whānau Ora, a Whānau Ora and collective impact approach that works alongside whānau living in Kāinga Ora homes and transitional and emergency accommodation. The aim of this initiative is to support these whānau to achieve their goals and aspirations.

Some providers we spoke with questioned whether public organisations truly understand whānau-centred approaches. They do not see public organisations working in whānau-centred ways. However, we also heard from public organisations and providers that public organisations' understanding of whānau-centred approaches has been gradually improving.

Many public organisations we spoke with emphasised the role Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and providers played in supporting whānau during the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly their ability to act quickly and draw on their networks to get support to communities.

The visibility of this work appears to have raised public organisations' awareness of Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and providers and the potential of whānau-centred approaches.

Some public organisations are taking steps towards whānau-centred approaches

Strategies are starting to signal an intention to support whānau-centred approaches

Despite public organisations' mixed understanding of whānau ora, some are starting to signal an intention to take whānau-centred approaches to their work.

Many public organisations (or sectors) have developed strategies that state their commitment to improving services and outcomes for Māori and tagata Pasifika. Some of these strategies reference whānau ora or a focus on whānau and family in the design of policies and services.

Examples include:

  • He Korowai Oranga: the Māori Health Strategy and Whakamaua: Māori Health Action Plan 2020-25.
  • Ola Manuia: Pacific Health and Wellbeing Action Plan 2020-25.
  • New Zealand Cancer Action Plan 2019-2029.
  • COVID-19 Māori Health Protection Plan (2021).
  • Pacific Prosperity, the Ministry of Social Development's national strategy and action plan for Pacific peoples.
  • Te Aorerekura: The National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence (2021).
  • MAIHI Ka Ora – The National Māori Housing Strategy.
  • Hōkai Rangi: Ara Poutama Aotearoa Strategy 2019-2024.
  • Te Huringa o Te Tai, the Police's Māori strategy.

Public organisations are increasingly partnering with Māori

Public organisations are increasingly setting up formal partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations.

For example, the Police have partnered with Far North iwi Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kuri to develop Whiria Te Muka. This is a whānau-centred initiative focused on preventing and reducing family harm.

Oranga Tamariki has strategic partnerships with several iwi and Māori organisations throughout the country to help tamariki and rangatahi Māori "thrive in the care and protection of their whānau, hapū, and iwi".19

Some public organisations have also set up working relationships with Pasifika organisations. For example, Pasifika Futures told us that it has partnered with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on managed isolation and quarantine support.

Some public organisations are adopting whānau-centred approaches

The public organisations we spoke with identified a range of initiatives that support or reflect whānau-centred approaches. The nature of this work varies, as well as how it reflects the key features of whānau-centred approaches.

As we have already mentioned, some public organisations are working to deliberately take whānau-centred approaches in the way they design and deliver programmes.

Paiheretia Te Muka Tāngata

Paiheretia Te Muka Tāngata is a whānau-centred initiative jointly led by Te Puni Kōkiri, the Department of Corrections, and the Ministry of Social Development, in partnership with local Māori. The initiative intends to support tāne Māori and their whānau in their engagement with the Corrections system.

The initiative assists them to set goals, access services, and maintain relationships and cultural connections with whānau members. It links with the Ministry of Social Development's integrated case management service. It also aims to improve the capability of Department of Corrections' staff to work in kaupapa Māori and whānau-centred ways.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the initiative was signed in September 2019. The initiative is being piloted with iwi in two areas: Ngāti Rangi in Te Tai Tōkerau (Northland) and Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated in Te Matau a Māui (Hawke's Bay). The pilots involve funding provider-based Kaiarataki Navigators to work with tāne Māori and their whānau.20

In September 2021, an early evaluation of these pilots found that, although Kaiarataki Navigator contracts had been in place for only six to eight weeks, both tāne and iwi had reported positive engagement and had achieved some outcomes. At the time of writing this report, the Department of Corrections and Te Puni Kōkiri were in the process of finalising this evaluation.

Public organisations recognise the need to consider the wider whānau context and address a broader range of needs when working with individuals.

The Police, for example, told us that a whānau-centred approach underpins Te Pae Oranga, which takes a holistic approach to reduce future offending. The Ministry of Social Development highlighted E Tū Whānau and Whānau Resilience as two examples of whānau-centred initiatives.

Similarly, Kāinga Ora told us that it is introducing a more whānau-centred way of working that involves connecting those living in Kāinga Ora homes to other support and services where necessary.

Public organisations have also established new navigator roles in recent years. In Part 5, we discuss the importance of public organisations that are establishing navigation roles like these co-ordinating with Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and providers.

Few public organisations measure whānau outcomes in their monitoring and evaluation

To improve their information and data on whānau, some public organisations have monitoring and evaluation under way or planned. Some of this work has a specific focus on measuring whānau outcomes.

We identified a few examples of public organisations gathering insights in a way that could be useful for whānau-centred approaches. These include gathering insights for specific initiatives such as Ngā Tini Whetū (where evaluation is being driven by Te Pou Matakana/Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency) and other recent strategies and plans, such as Te Aorerekura: The National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence.

Nonetheless, staff at public organisations told us that there is a lack of information on whānau and whānau outcomes because public services tend to be focused on individuals. This means that the data that is collected also tends to be focused on individuals.

There is not yet a significant shift towards whānau-centred approaches

After 10 years, much of the work that public organisations are doing in relation to whānau-centred approaches is still in early stages (for example, signalling strategic intent and building internal capability) or involves trialling small scale, time-limited initiatives.

In our view, the work to date does not yet represent a significant shift to whānau-centred approaches – either by these organisations or throughout the public sector. The general direction of travel is positive, but most public organisations we talked with are just getting started. A lot more work is needed for public organisations to make change that is in line with the aims of the Minister for Whānau Ora and the strategic focus of Te Puni Kōkiri.

People told us that public organisations have good intentions and a willingness to take whānau-centred approaches. However, we observed some scepticism about the nature and extent of change.

People we spoke with questioned whether public organisations are making changes that are really whānau-centred and that make a difference for whānau. For example, we heard that although public organisations often signal the need to devolve decision-making to better meet whānau needs and aspirations, they are reluctant to do so in practice.

As a result, many questioned whether public organisations know how to apply a whānau-centred approach to their work.

The Whānau Ora ministerial review made similar observations and findings.

Clearer expectations for public organisations are needed

There are no clear expectations for public organisations to take whānau-centred approaches to policy and service development or to support whānau-centred initiatives.

The Minister for Whānau Ora has expressed a clear intention to increase whānau-centred approaches throughout the public sector and shared this with his colleagues. The strategic focus area of Te Puni Kōkiri reflects this intention (see paragraphs 2.55 to 2.60). However, there is no corresponding obligation on other public organisations.

Te Puni Kōkiri told us that its work with Te Kawa Mataaho to develop advice to the Minister for Whānau Ora includes consideration of how to set expectations across the public sector.

Clarifying expectations for public organisations, alongside formally mandating the role of Te Puni Kōkiri (see Part 3), would place a stronger onus on public organisations to support the aim of broadening whānau-centred approaches.

Given the partnership approach underpinning the original governance of Whānau Ora, Te Puni Kōkiri will need to consider how to partner with iwi and hapū and seek the views of Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, providers, and whānau in developing this advice.

Recommendation 4
We recommend that Te Puni Kōkiri seek to clarify expectations for public organisations to support whānau-centred approaches.

Public sector processes and practices can discourage whānau-centred approaches

Although public sector processes and practices were developed for good reasons and are appropriate in many contexts, they can also act as a barrier to whānau-centred approaches.

We recognise that individual public organisations do not always have the authority to remove system-level barriers.

However, even when public organisations have the ability to adopt new ways of working that could improve how services are designed and delivered for whānau, changes still appear difficult to make.

We were told that public organisations tend to design and implement services that cater to the needs of individuals rather than whānau and take an "individualised, deficit focus" to providing services. This approach often results in a narrow focus on fixing a particular problem – which is often a problem experienced by individuals – rather than empowering whānau to be well and self-managing.

An individualised deficit focus may suit some services, such as emergency care for an acute illness or injury. In other situations, such as long-term recovery from illness or injury, a focus on building whānau strengths and resilience might be more appropriate.

Funding and contracting processes and practices can act as a barrier

In our interviews, Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and providers expressed considerable frustration about public sector funding and contracting processes and practices. Many staff in public organisations we spoke with echoed these frustrations.

A consistent theme was that public organisations often operate in isolation of each other when funding and contracting services. This tends to mean that public organisations focus on their priorities rather than taking a holistic and integrated service response to whānau, who often have multiple, overlapping needs and aspirations.

This tendency also compounds the compliance costs that providers face when taking on contracts. We were told that some providers manage 30 or 40 public sector contracts each, even in a single sector.

Public organisations often have fixed eligibility criteria for funding. These criteria do not always align with what Whānau Ora providers do or the way that they operate. We also heard that public organisations often prescribe the services that they want others to provide.

These features leave little or no flexibility for providers to design and deliver services that respond to the needs of whānau and achieve the best outcomes. Contracts can also impose restrictive eligibility criteria for services. This can mean that some whānau or some whānau members cannot access services that would benefit them.

One provider we spoke with described having to "contort" itself to suit public organisations' contract requirements and service prescriptions when applying for funding. Another provider said that meeting these requirements risks providers losing sense of "who we are".

Tendering is a common way for public organisations to award contracts, and it is often an effective way to secure contracts and services with good value for money. However, we heard that it can also foster a competitive rather than collaborative environment among providers.

This competition acts as a barrier to whānau-centred ways of working because providers often rely on their relationships with each other to provide co-ordinated and holistic support to whānau.

Tendering sometimes does not suit the development of collaborative approaches. Nor does it suit situations where there is only one appropriate provider – for example, an iwi provider wanting to design and deliver services to whānau.

In many instances, tendering for services will be the appropriate method for securing services. However, public organisations should explore and seek guidance on alternative methods that might be more appropriate in a given circumstance.

Although the average length of provider contracts in the health and social sectors has increased in recent years, we were told that public organisations often still offer short-term contracts. Because contracts do not often include money for administrative tasks, these contract cycles take up staff time that could be used for supporting whānau.

We were told that providers often experience application fatigue with contracts and funding sources that they must regularly apply or re-apply for.

As well as the immediate effects on whānau support, short-term contracts put providers' long-term sustainability at risk. Providers cannot easily plan or guarantee support for whānau beyond contract cycles.

One commissioning agency told us that, although it had worked hard to build relationships with its providers, its inability to guarantee them funding from one year to the next puts these relationships at risk.

Staff at public organisations and providers said that reporting requirements in contracts are often overly onerous.

People also considered that the value of some reporting requirements is questionable. Some requirements fail to reflect the richness of providers' work with whānau and the results they are achieving. People told us that public organisations are largely interested in what was variously referred to as "tick box", "widget", or "outputs-based" reporting instead.

We were told that public organisations are often less interested in the perspectives of whānau or other information about outcomes. As a result, provider reports tend not to give public organisations useful information about whānau outcomes and goals.

As discussed in Part 3, we consider that Te Puni Kōkiri should prioritise completing its work on insights and performance reporting for whānau-centred approaches. This work could be useful for other public organisations.

It is important that public organisations gather information about shorter-term impacts that is useful and appropriate. However, we encourage public organisations to consider how they can improve reporting requirements to ensure that they record useful information about results being achieved without overburdening providers.

There are challenges in consistently integrating and co-ordinating services for whānau

Public organisations, particularly in the health, social, and justice sectors, are intending to work together and with non-government organisations to provide joined-up (sometimes called "integrated") services for whānau. They recognise that a co-ordinated approach to supporting whānau is integral to providing services and support, and to achieving and sustaining whānau ora.

This intention is reflected in a range of strategic documents, including:

  • Te Aorerekura: The National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence;
  • the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy;
  • He Korowai Oranga: the Māori Health Strategy;
  • Whakamaua: Māori Health Action Plan 2020-25;
  • MAIHI Ka Ora; and
  • the Homelessness Action Plan.

We heard that collaborative work on responding to the Covid-19 pandemic – including on the whānau-centred approach developed for the Māori vaccination drive in 2021 – has helped to strengthen relationships between public organisations. This was because they needed to meet regularly and work closely together. Public organisations we talked to in Canterbury said that the Canterbury earthquakes had a similar effect in bringing agencies together.

However, we also heard mixed views about whether inter-agency forums and working groups result in action and whether the co-ordinating role played by Regional Public Service Leads in the regions is making a difference.

Regional public organisation leaders often work alongside iwi and providers in regional forums or governance groups. We identified particularly strong relationships in Manawatū where Te Tihi o Ruahine Whānau Ora Alliance championed a Whānau Ora and collective impact approach in the region.

However, in most instances, we heard that the relationships between public organisations and providers are driven by contractual arrangements for specific services. As we have discussed, some public sector processes, practices, and system-level settings make it difficult for providers to develop and deliver whānau-centred services. These barriers also affect the quality of the relationships between providers and public organisations.

There are some examples of public organisations and Māori organisations collaborating on specific whānau-centred initiatives. These include Ngā Tini Whetū, Paiheretia Te Muka Tāngata, and the Kāinga Whānau Ora initiative in Manawatū.

However, we did not see many examples of public organisations implementing integrated services in practice. We heard that it is not easy and that there are many reasons why it is not happening. These include:

  • a lack of clear and consistent leadership at all levels for providing integrated services;
  • public organisations having different priorities or being too busy for what they perceive as additional or optional work;
  • public organisations having concerns about not being able to share information about whānau because of the Privacy Act 2020; and
  • at the regional level, limited sources of discretionary funding to enable public organisations to pool resources for shared initiatives, as well as different organisational criteria and processes for approving funding.

Public organisations' capability to work in whānau-centred ways is still developing

Public organisations are building the cultural competence and capability of their staff to engage with Māori and Pasifika communities and design policies and services in a way that meets these communities' aspirations and needs. Some public organisations have recently employed staff specifically to assist with these organisational changes.

Although many staff in public organisations acknowledged that public organisations are working on improving capability, they were clear that there is a long way to go. Many people told us that they did not think public organisations understand how to support whānau-centred approaches in practice.

Staff in public organisations also told us that some are reluctant or resistant to embrace whānau-centred ways of working – or that they lack the capability to work in different ways that better support whānau-centred approaches.

Public organisations and providers emphasised the importance of leadership and building the right mindset to bring about cultural change and changes to organisational systems and processes.

Many people emphasised a need for more Māori staff in public organisations, particularly in senior positions, to help bring about change. Some pointed to the value of secondments in improving understanding and capability in public organisations.

Work under way could better enable whānau-centred approaches

The effect of the barriers posed by these public sector processes and practices is that the public sector's operating environment incentivises individualised, service-focused approaches while disincentivising whānau-centred approaches. This makes it difficult to support or implement whānau-centred approaches.

When we asked people what would enable public organisations to provide integrated support for whānau and better support whānau-centred approaches, they consistently identified the same factors. They include:

  • strong leadership;
  • having the right people at the table;
  • having productive, high-trust relationships;
  • a long-term commitment to working together;
  • a focus on shared goals and a common agenda;
  • partnering with the community sector; and
  • being prepared to take risks and to test and address perceived barriers.21

In our view, the barriers to supporting and implementing whānau-centred approaches are not insurmountable. Many of them do not need changes to system-level settings and policies to overcome.

Public organisations and providers told us that the Covid-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for providers and public organisations to work together more closely. It also led to public organisations working differently and "dropping the red tape" that can discourage whānau-centred ways of working. We heard a mix of optimism and scepticism from public organisations and providers that this approach will continue.

The public sector has started work that is intended to address the barriers that some public sector processes and practices create. The Ministry of Social Development has a team leading work for the Social Wellbeing Board that aims to improve how the government commissions social services.

The intention is that, during the next six years, 22 social sector government departments and Crown entities will implement a more relational approach to commissioning social services. This is consistent with the Social Wellbeing Board's role to work with sectors to consider outcomes as a whole instead of agencies considering outcomes for their individual responsibilities only.

If successful, this work could encourage a more enabling environment for whānau-centred approaches. It could also encourage more positive and productive relationships between the public sector and social service providers more generally.

The implementation plan for this work describes six overlapping features of relational approaches to commissioning. They are:

  • grounding work in the needs and aspirations of the people being served;
  • entering relationships with a common set of outcomes;
  • recognising and giving practical effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi;
  • agreeing how to work together to deliver these common outcomes;
  • committing to shared accountability; and
  • agreeing clear roles throughout the commissioning process.

The implementation plan includes action to address system-wide barriers that make moving to relational ways of commissioning difficult. The plan identifies several system-wide barriers including procurement rules, budget processes, the allocation of responsibilities between agencies, legislation, government policy, and how these are operationalised.

It is important that Te Puni Kōkiri continues to be involved in this work so that it is well informed by an understanding of what is needed to better enable whānau-centred approaches. Te Puni Kōkiri told us it wants to work more closely with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure that the new relational commissioning model aligns well with Whānau Ora and whānau-centred ways of working.

Recommendation 5
We recommend that the Social Wellbeing Board consider how to better enable whānau-centred approaches in developing and implementing the Government's new relational approach to commissioning social services.

The Productivity Commission is also carrying out an inquiry on economic inclusion and social mobility. The inquiry is focusing on the causes and underlying dynamics of persistent disadvantage. Part of its brief is to develop recommendations for system changes.

The Productivity Commission released its interim report in September 2022. It includes interim recommendations about "system shifts" it considers necessary to better support well-being outcomes, including outcomes for whānau.

The Productivity Commission intends to release its final report in May 2023.

We reiterate that many of the barriers to whānau-centred approaches can be addressed without major organisational or system changes. Public organisations should not wait for the Productivity Commission's final report or the Social Wellbeing Board's work on relational commissioning to be finished.

It is crucial that public organisations consider what they can do now to better support whānau-centred approaches. For example, they may be able to make greater use of outcomes-based contracts and work with iwi, hapū, Māori, Pasifika, and community organisations to co-design services where appropriate.

The Treasury and Te Kawa Mataaho could provide more proactive advice

Many public organisations see the Vote structure and the Public Finance Act 1989 as a barrier to public organisations working together. They told us that this does not create an enabling environment for whānau-centred approaches.

However, the Treasury told us that the public finance system enables flexibility and that public organisations have many different mechanisms and pieces of guidance to enable joint working arrangements. We agree with the Treasury.

Paiheretia te Muka Tāngata and Ngā Tini Whetū (which we describe in more detail in Part 5) are examples of public organisations jointly funding initiatives.

Nonetheless, there appears to be significant uncertainty about the joint funding models available. We consider that the Treasury could take a more proactive approach to providing guidance to public organisations about how to jointly fund initiatives.

Ongoing improvements to the public finance system and implementation of the Public Service Act could also help address systemic barriers to supporting Whānau Ora and whānau-centred approaches. In Budget 2022, the Treasury began piloting a "cluster" approach for the justice and natural resource sectors to improve collaboration and reporting within existing legislative provisions.

The Public Service Act introduced a range of formal mechanisms to support more joined-up working throughout the public sector. The Act also includes expectations for public organisations to develop and maintain their capability to engage with and understand Māori perspectives.

Te Kawa Mataaho has an important role in embedding these changes and supporting public organisations to make use of these mechanisms.

Te Kawa Mataaho told us it often provides direct support to agencies working through matters of system design, including proposals for joint working arrangements. It has also developed general guidance for structural, governance, and collaborative arrangements in the public sector.22

Recommendation 6
We recommend that the Treasury and Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission provide more proactive guidance to public organisations about joint working and funding arrangements available that would support the use of whānau-centred approaches.

19: Oranga Tamariki, "How we work – Strategic partnerships with Māori", at

20: The providers delivering the initiative are: Waitomo Papakāinga, Te Hau Ora o Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whatua Rūnanga, and Ngāti Hine Health Trust (in Northland); and Te Roopu a Iwi Trust, Te Kupenga Hauora Ahuriri, Te Whare Maire o Tapuwae, Kahungunu Health, Te Ikaora Rangatahi Services Incorporated, and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga Trust (in Hawke's Bay).

21: We recently commissioned a report from Haemata Limited about Māori perspectives of accountability that emphasises the importance to Māori of meaningful, transparent, and accountable relationships between them and the public sector. See Haemata Limited (2022), Māori perspectives on public accountability.

22: Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission, "Tā pūnaha hanganga: System design", at and Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission, "Kete Rauemi Hoahoa mō ngā raru – Guidance: System Design Toolkit for shared problems", at