32.1. The Commission’s terms of reference invite the Commission to investigate what governance and institutional arrangements are required to ensure the effective, efficient, and sustainable provision of public infrastructure services and facilities.1
32.2. The operation of Auckland’s local government involves very significant amounts of public money. In the 2008/09 year, the eight Auckland councils have budgeted to spend almost $2 billion ($1,952 million) in operating expenses, and over $1.25 billion ($1,264 million) in capital expenditure, a total of over $3.2 billion. The new Auckland Council will thus be a very large organisation with a very large budget. It could have over 6,000 staff.2
32.3. The Commission notes that the establishment of the new Auckland Council provides a significant opportunity to implement best performance management practice to achieve greater value for money and improved services for Auckland citizens and ratepayers. Many of the provisions of Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA 2002”) focus on performance improvement through comprehensive planning, budgeting, and reporting, and the development of performance targets and reporting against these targets (on broader community outcomes as well as service delivery outputs). But there is a considerable way to go to achieve best practice levels, as a number of reports of the Auditor-General have identified.3
32.4. The establishment of the new council should see a re-engineering of all administrative and service delivery processes, providing an opportunity for innovative arrangements which can provide improved services at lower cost. In particular, a unified back office and the full exploitation of modern information and communications technology (“ICT”) offer great potential to achieve this.
32.5. This chapter discusses the following key issues:
32.6. Many of the submissions made to the Commission supporting changes to the structure of Auckland’s local government were based on the view that significant cost savings should result.
32.7. While the Commission considers that there are other equally important issues in designing a new governance structure for Auckland, it fully accepts the importance of these financial issues. Within the time and information sources available, it has been difficult for the Commission to estimate in detail the financial implications to Auckland local government of its recommendations. The Commission therefore called on corporate finance consultants Taylor Duignan Barry (“TDB”) to provide a preliminary financial cost-benefit analysis of the Commission’s preferred option of a unified Auckland Council and six local councils. (This preferred option is discussed in detail in Chapter 14, “The Auckland Council: Key Features”). The report contains TDB’s estimate of the financial costs and benefits of the Commission’s recommended structure, and compares those costs and benefits to an alternative option to provide an estimate of net present value.4 The analysis in the report is a preliminary and partial analysis undertaken using “desk-top” research and without a detailed implementation plan. A copy of the TDB report is contained in Appendix B of this volume, pp. –.
32.8. The Commission is aware of past New Zealand and international experiences that suggest that savings do not necessarily arise from major local government reorganisations. It notes, however, that savings may have occurred but been reallocated to new functions or to enhancements in service. Although only indicative, the TDB analysis suggests that at least modest savings in both operating and capital expenditures are achievable. Even allowing for the additional costs that will be incurred in establishing the new Auckland Council (and which cannot be accurately determined until an implementation plan is developed), there is a positive net present value for the Commission’s preferred option.
32.9. The Commission believes that the achievable efficiency savings identified in the TDB analysis should guide the Establishment Board and the new Auckland Council in developing the new arrangements, and should be reflected in the budgets of the new Auckland Council. The Transition Management Group (as recommended by the Commission in Chapter 33, “Managing the Transition”), should contribute fully to the Establishment Board’s work in setting Auckland Council’s efficiency savings targets. The Commission agrees with the TDB report’s comment that a high-quality implementation of the new arrangements will be needed to achieve the targeted savings or efficiencies.
32.10. In summary, the TDB report found that the Commission’s preferred option (an Auckland Council and six local councils) is superior to that of the alternative option considered by the Commission (the establishment of an Auckland Council with 20 community boards).
32.11. Underpinning the TDB report’s conclusions are a number of key assumptions including the following:
32.12. As discussed in Chapter 33, a more detailed financial cost-benefit analysis will need to be undertaken by the Establishment Board as part of the Auckland Council implementation plan. Once this analysis is undertaken, the Commission considers that definitive savings targets should be set for the operation of the new Auckland Council and its council-controlled organisations (“CCOs”).
32.13. The Commission is aware that these savings appear modest in relation to the claims made by a number of submitters (as discussed below). But it is important that realistic targets be used in the implementation process. It is possible that the Establishment Board will identify greater possible savings during the course of a detailed cost-benefit analysis.
32.14. It can be noted that, in principle, some of these efficiencies (such as savings through procurement and unified or shared service delivery) are achievable through collaboration between individual councils, without any reorganisation. However, the record of success of Auckland councils in achieving efficiencies through such voluntary cooperation is limited, with only a few significant shared-service examples such as the shared library services and the combined Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council recycling arrangement.
32.15. It should also be noted that the TDB analysis covers only the financial costs and benefits incurred by the Auckland councils. It does not include any effect on the financial costs of firms or private individuals (such as the costs of obtaining permits or consents) or on the economic costs and benefits to the whole region – for example, better coordination of capital expenditures and speedier implementation of major infrastructure projects.
32.16. Many submissions to the Commission referred to savings that should be achievable from amalgamation. A number focused on savings through a reduction in the number of mayors and elected councillors and senior managers (although the Commission notes that this is only a very small part of current total expenditures). On the other hand, a number of submitters referred to the perceived failure of the 1989 local government amalgamations to result in reductions in rates.
32.17. A number of submitters provided views and research to the Commission on the financial benefits of unified or shared services. The submissions of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, the Auckland Regional Council, and the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development noted the potential for a range of efficiency gains from reforming back-office administration and reducing bureaucracy.32.18. The Employers and Manufacturers Association commissioned research from Deloitte, which it presented to the Commission, to estimate possible savings from a unified Auckland local government structure. Deloitte estimated total operating and capital cost savings of $132 million per annum. Most of its estimated savings came from procurement savings ($91 million per annum) and staff reductions (around 10% or $40 million per annum). It estimated transition or implementation costs at $306 million, which included project implementation costs of $210 million and $69 million in staff redundancies.6 These implementation costs are based on a different set of assumptions from those contained in the TDB report (based on the Commission’s preferred option), and thus estimated costs are significantly higher than the TDB estimate.
32.19. The Auckland Regional Council put estimated savings from a unitary structure at $160 million per annum. These would accrue from a reduction in the number of elected representatives, efficiencies from having a single district plan for the region, a reduction in litigation costs between councils, plus additional savings of $28 million per annum from integrated management of water, wastewater, and stormwater.7
32.20. The One Auckland Trust suggested operating costs savings of around 10% from a single city structure, although it provided no detailed analysis to support this figure. Likewise, the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development suggested annual operational savings from having a single city of $200 million, based on an assumed level of savings of 10% in private sector amalgamations.8
32.21. A submission from Dr Rouse and Dr Putterill of Auckland University outlined an analysis undertaken by them which showed no evidence of savings in road maintenance costs from the 1989 local government amalgamations.9 The Commission considers that this conclusion probably reflects the impact of previous contracting-out of this activity.
32.22. Submissions from Papakura District referred to a number of studies suggesting limited cost savings from amalgamations, including a review by McKinlay Douglas of amalgamation results in South Australia.10
32.23. The Establishment Board should design a new performance management system for the Auckland Council. The existing system of statements of service performance, prepared by all councils as part of their annual report, is a useful base on which to build. So are the community outcomes, which are required to be developed in the preparation of each council’s long-term council community plan (“LTCCP”). Also useful are the current arrangements for statements of intent (“SOIs”) which are required from CCOs (as discussed in Chapter 21, “Council Organisations and Council-Controlled Organisations”).
32.24. However reports by the Auditor-General on LTCCPs, on SOIs prepared by CCOs, and on the quality of statements of service performance indicate major deficiencies in the way performance management systems are implemented in local government.11 The Auditor-General has identified similar deficiencies in performance reporting in central government. In particular, these deficiencies include the failure to develop relevant indicators that are clearly linked to key organisational objectives.12
32.25. A key aspect of the Auckland Council’s performance management system should be the development of an organisational culture of continual improvement in service performance and efficiency.13 The Commission is of the view that customer service standards should be entrenched in an Auckland Council customer service charter. The standards should cover such issues as accessibility, timeliness, and cost (where there is a charge for council services) for all services delivered to the public. For core services from internal business units such as Auckland Council’s unified service centre service, delivery standards should also be specified.
32.26. Waitakere City Council has a good example of a customer service charter whereby the council commits to “the provision of excellent public service”.14 Commitments are made in four areas of service performance including democratic participation, community engagement, regulation and compliance, and customer services. For example, the council is committed to responding to requests for resource management consent within two working days. The council has also documented a formal customer complaint process for the public.
32.27. Auckland Council will collect data and monitor the performance of the local councils. An important facet of this will be to ensure that the local councils stay within their mandate and perform to public expectations, especially in relation to outcomes stated in their community action plans (as discussed in Chapter 16, “Local Councils”). Outcomes will relate to service delivery standards, as well as aspects of “place-shaping”15 where this is measurable. The local councils themselves will have a monitoring function, and report on their own performance, for example in relation to environmental indicators for their districts, and will compile data following uniform Auckland Council information standards. This information will be used by the Auckland Council in its monitoring.
32.28. Where services have been delegated to local councils, the Auckland Council will benchmark their performance. For other services provided by local councils, it will be expected they will develop service standards – again, this will form a useful basis for comparative benchmarking of performance. Other performance targets and outcomes contained in the three-yearly partnership agreement with local councils and the community action plan will provide the yardsticks for measuring performance.
32.29. Chapter 21 also proposes a more rigorous approach to the development of performance indicators and targets for inclusion in the SOIs required to be prepared by each CCO. For the larger Auckland Council CCOs, these SOIs will reflect the requirement for State-owned enterprises to be “as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown”.16
32.30. In developing its performance management arrangements for the public service and Crown entities, the Government has recently identified the need for a focus on value for money. The Commission understands this is to be achieved by the public service reviewing how services can be delivered more effectively, setting realistic budgets and managing within those budgets, and improving the ability to measure and report on performance.17
32.31. In the Commission’s view, these principles should be adopted for the management of the new Auckland Council. They should form part of the budgeting and management systems to be developed by the Establishment Board for the new council.
Twenty First Century Government is enabled by technology – policy is inspired by it, business change is delivered by it, customer and corporate services are dependent on it, and democratic engagement is exploring it. Moreover modern governments with serious transformational intent see technology as a strategic asset and not just a tactical tool. Technology alone does not transform government, but government cannot transform to meet modern citizens’ expectations without it.18
32.32. As mentioned below, major re-engineering of all council service delivery systems should be a main priority for the Auckland Council. The Establishment Board, using advice and input from the Transition Management Group, should work on this aspect of the Auckland Council’s proposed information systems strategy as a primary task.
32.33. This section of the chapter will provide guidance to the Establishment Board.It considers why the consolidation of council systems and back-office administrative reforms is essential to enable the implementation of an integrated governance system for Auckland. Presently, Auckland with its eight councils has a high level of duplication in back-office functions. It has eight different IT systems with varying degrees of compatibility. The territorial authorities each have their own approach to service delivery, their own by-laws and resource management plan rules which, as mentioned in other chapters, cause difficulties for those who deal with more than one council. Additionally, the regional council has its own set of policies, rules and by-laws. Each council has its website with different standards of quality and accessibility. The ease of access to information varies from council to council and it is difficult to compare information across Auckland councils.
32.34. Underpinning these reforms is a need for council service processes to be designed to optimise e-government capacity including much more on-line “self-service” delivery and easy information interchange across the council’s staff in various locations.
32.35. Technology and process re-engineering will play a strategic role in enabling these improvements. For example, when designed, the new planning system will be able to support a single, simplified, and automated planning application process across the region. Information systems will be used to link the geographical information system with the new planning documents in order to improve the public’s visual understanding of spatial planning requirements.
32.36. The establishment of the new Auckland Council includes an assumed consolidation of back-office service functions and the unification and redesign of a number of processes and services including
32.37. A single set of policies, rules, regulations, by-laws, and integrated systems will allow licensing, permitting, and consenting processes to be harmonised across Auckland. This will mean less need for applicants making a typical council application to use experts to assist them navigate through the complexities inherent in many of today’s district plans and by-laws. The objective should be to ensure that the majority of applications can be made online by filling in a standard form.
32.38. With systems standardised across the region, the public will be able to transact business using consistent procedures and documentation through a number of service delivery channels, including a single internet gateway or “portal”. Web-based services should be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including the ability to access the Auckland district plan, review notified consents and plan changes and all associated information such as planning submissions. More approval decisions will be prescriptive or rules-based, allowing a larger number of approvals to be automated or devolved to the front-line service staff.
32.39. The accounting policies and financial statements for the Auckland Council will be standardised and consolidated. With a single common chart of accounts and a single accounting system, it will be much easier to provide the public with comparable financial information between local councils. The costs required to govern and develop Auckland will be transparent and comparable at the regional and local level. There will be an integrated budget system. Forecasting across council entities will be consistent. Information technologies will make financial information more accessible.
32.40. The Commission considers the consolidation or unification of council systems and back-office administration to be critical to the efficient management of Auckland Council’s operations. The key features of the unified service delivery infrastructure include
32.41. A potential framework for unified service delivery is illustrated in Figure 32.1.
32.42. The Commission has identified three unified service categories that have the potential to deliver significant efficiency gains: consolidated ICT infrastructure, unified service delivery, and citizen “self service”.
32.43. Currently there is significant duplication of ICT applications and infrastructure across Auckland councils. In Chapter 27, “Information and Communications Technology”, the Commission recommends that Auckland Council’s ICT infrastructure and functions be centrally governed with a single information technology infrastructure platform and common systems and standards, including the adoption of the Government’s e-Government Interoperability Framework (“e-GIF”).20 Data and knowledge will be harmonised and administered centrally through a shared data and contact centre. In the process of consolidating the ICT infrastructure, duplication will be removed and existing capacity improved. Core common systems will include finance and accounting, geographical information systems, asset management, property management (including ratings), regulation management, customer management, document management, and human resources (including payroll).
32.44. Back-office functions: As part of the establishment of a single data and contact centre, the common administrative functions that support the core common systems (including information technology, finance and accounting, human resources, procurement and asset management, internal audit, customer management, legal services, and planning support) should be unified across the Auckland Council.
32.45. Procurement: A consolidated procurement function should undertake large-scale contestable tendering, vendor and contract management, supply chain, logistics, and material management for Auckland Council including the local councils. Typical goods and services that suit strategic supplier management include telecommunications, electricity, fuel, fleet management, property maintenance, recruitment, and professional services.
32.46. Transactions: All Auckland Council and local council transactional processing should be produced through a single, standard process representing leading practice. For example, the process for the production of the rates bill, accounts payable and receivable, and consent and licence applications should all be undertaken using the same systems platform. The Commission anticipates that many of these systems will borrow from the “best of the best” systems in current use by councils. There will be a move away from paper-based service delivery towards electronic delivery with a common payment gateway, a single customer call centre, and a single, Auckland-wide website to service Aucklanders’ needs. One phone number will reach any council person in Auckland.
32.47. As the new planning system is designed, it will be vital that key service delivery, planning, and regulatory processes are designed with digital management and electronic delivery channels in mind. Auckland Council consent, permitting, licensing, application, and payment processes should be engineered to be simple in their design and capable of a high level of citizen self-service. The delivery costs should be known for each core process; they should represent leading practice and be benchmarked internationally to ensure optimum efficiency is being targeted. Self-service transactions are considerably cheaper to deliver than those requiring high levels of manual operation or face-to face involvement.
32.48. Internationally, a number of council shared or unified service centres operate as self-funded, stand-alone business units providing service and financial incentives to users. It is expected that Auckland Council unified services will provide commercially competitive services and be able to pass on the benefits of any efficiency gains to internal customers.21
32.49. Although it is assumed that the proposed Auckland Council CCOs will sit outside Auckland Council’s unified back office and customer contact call centre arrangements, these organisations should have the opportunity to use these facilities if it will result in efficiency gains. For example, Watercare may find it more efficient to participate in the scale of Auckland Council’s financial management and billing systems and customer contact centre rather than develop its own systems. All Auckland Council entities including the proposed CCOs providing council services (such as Watercare and the Regional Transport Authority) will, however, be required to adopt the Auckland Council’s ICT infrastructure and data standards, including the council’s central government-designed interoperability framework.
32.50. In the unified council operating model, the centralised data centre will accommodate and manage the back-office administrative functions which will be separated from front-line service delivery. Front-line staff would be located in service centres close to their local communities. For example, in the case of a web-based building permit application, the technology infrastructure, the website, and the telecommunications network will be located and managed centrally as a shared service. The front line staff required to oversee compliance and provide field-based services to the public will be located close to the community to service their needs at the local level.
32.51. The Commission expects that as part of the pre-establishment programme set out in Chapter 33 (Appendix 33.1), there will be an audit and evaluation of the current ICT infrastructure in councils across the Auckland region. It is expected that an interim e-government and information systems strategy for the Auckland Council will be developed by the Establishment Board.
32.52. The Commission does not contemplate that Auckland Council’s ICT infrastructure will be built from scratch. The existing ICT infrastructure, including hardware and application software, need to be used where possible. The objective will be to ensure a smooth transfer of the eight current councils’ ICT systems to the Auckland Council and to plan the migration of the numerous duplicated council business systems to a single ICT infrastructure platform. It will be necessary to identify the best existing system and determine the time frame and costs required for the complete unification of information systems.
32.53. As part of this work, a review of all business processes and supporting technologies will be required, to identify what is required to ensure the continuity of current council services during the transition to the Auckland Council. This is important to ensure that Auckland Council can effectively operate from its establishment and there is no service disruption during the transition period.
32.54. As part of the review of the current ICT infrastructure, an assessment of current and future ICT skills capability will be required. The ability of Auckland Council to attract and retain highly-skilled people to support the ICT programme of work will be a critical requirement for the Auckland Council transition programme.
32.55. As a large organisation providing a very wide range of services, the Auckland Council will need to be efficient and responsive. In principle, all its activities could be subject to rigorous external performance review so as to provide assurance to the council and the public that it is delivering high-quality services in a cost-effective way.
32.56. The Commission considers an independent Auckland Services Performance Auditor should be appointed to oversee the performance of all Auckland Council service activities. This would be a very senior role, which would need to be undertaken by a person who enjoys the trust and confidence of the Auckland public. It would be desirable to provide for this position in legislation.
32.57. The Auckland Services Performance Auditor should be appointed by the Auckland Council for a three-year renewable term (with a maximum term of six years), on the joint recommendation of the Chair of the Commerce Commission and the Auditor-General. The Commission considers it appropriate that these two office-holders be involved in the appointment, both because of their professional roles (the Commerce Commission has a key role in ensuring monopoly powers are not exploited, and the Auditor-General has a key role in reviewing performance management in local government), and because their independent status will give the public confidence in the appointment process.
32.58. The Commission envisages that the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will be located independently of the Auckland Council in the offices of a regulatory body such as the Commerce Commission. The Auckland Services Performance Auditor should have the power to obtain information from all Auckland Council bodies and should also be given the resources to commission independent analysis and investigation as required. He or she would have the power to report publicly on any issue at any time.
32.59. This role would complement and extend the work of the Auditor-General. As mentioned above, the Auditor-General audits the LTCCPs and the financial viability of each council. The Auditor-General also audits the statements of service performance, which are required as part of each council’s annual report. However, the emphasis is on the review of processes and systems and the adequacy and relevance of the reported performance measures (that is, systems issues) rather than on the level of performance itself (the substantive issues). The focus of the Auckland Services Performance Auditor would be on the substantive issues of performance – namely, whether the Auckland Council is performing adequately in providing high-quality services in a cost-effective way.
32.60. The Auckland Services Performance Auditor would not have a role in dealing with individual complaints or grievances about the Auckland Council. The Auckland Council will have its own complaints resolution processes, as do the eight existing Auckland councils. In addition, there is a right to take complaints about council actions to the Ombudsman.
32.61. It would be expected that the Auckland Services Performance Auditor would adopt a constructive approach to the task and seek to identify changes which can both improve services and reduce costs. However, it would not be useful for the Auckland Services Performance Auditor to start work until Auckland Council’s operating processes have been determined and implemented and some time has elapsed to enable assessments to be made. It would therefore be appropriate for the appointment to be made one year after the Auckland Council has started operation.
32.62. This role is particularly important for those activities of the Auckland Council that will be monopoly providers of services, in particular water services and the regional public transport service industries. In discussing the operation of a new integrated water CCO in Chapter 26, “The Three Waters”, the Commission considered the desirability of a price regulator for the water industry to ensure it does not exploit its monopoly position through higher than necessary prices, but preferred an independent external performance review.
32.63. As discussed in Chapter 21 on council organisations, in order to ensure the good performance of the larger CCOs which will be part of the Auckland Council, the Auckland Services Performance Auditor would review the adequacy and relevance of CCO performance targets as set out in the SOIs, and the accuracy of performance reported against those targets. As discussed in that chapter, for the proposed CCOs Watercare Services and the Regional Transport Authority, the Auckland Services Performance Auditor would
The Auckland Council needs to deliver services in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
32A The Auckland Council should build efficiency savings targets into the Auckland Council budget over the course of the transition.
32B The Auckland Council should take advantage of modern information and communications technologies in implementing its unified service delivery framework.
32C The Auckland Council unified service delivery framework will include32D The Auckland Council should implement leading public sector performance management practices to ensure it operates and reports to the highest standards of accountability and transparency.
32E Auckland Council customer service standards should be entrenched in a customer service charter.
32F To promote the widespread adoption of the unified service delivery framework the Auckland Council shouldTransition
32H To give effect to Recommendation 32A, the Establishment Board should review the estimated efficiencies and integration costs identified in the Taylor Duignan Barry report attached as Appendix B, and build relevant savings targets and implementation costs into the Establishment Board’s implementation plan and draft budget of the Auckland Council.
32I The Establishment Board should develop the framework described in Recommendation 32C and in addition should quantify the cost, benefits, and priorities for unified services.
32J In carrying out all the above work, the Establishment Board should draw on the expertise and resources of the Transition Management Group.
1 Reflecting the “efficiency and effectiveness” requirements placed on local authorities by the Local Government Act 2002, section 14(1)(e) and (g).
2 Taylor Duignan Barry, Financial Analysis: Re-organisation of the Councils in the Auckland Region, report for the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Auckland, 2009, Appendix B, pp. –; based on existing council staff numbers reported in councils’ 2008 annual reports.
3 Office of the Auditor-General, Local government: Results of the 2005/06 audits and Results of the 2006/07 audits (available at www.oag.govt.nz/local-govt, accessed March 2009); and Office of the Auditor-General, Statements of corporate intent: Legislative compliance and performance reporting, June 2007, p.19 (available at www.oag.govt.nz, accessed March 2009).
4 Net present value (“NPV”) is the present value (using an appropriate discount rate) of future cash savings after allowing for transition costs. NPV is thus an indicator of the positive or negative value of a proposal.
5 The numerous reports describing the efficiency savings from integrating water and wastewater operations are summarised in the Saha International report, Review of the Auckland Water Services Industry – Current state analysis, Wellington, 2006, p. 34.
6 Supplementary papers to the submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Employers and Manufacturers Association, paper by Deloitte, “Financial benefits of consolidation”, 23 June 2008, pp. 2–3.
7 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Auckland Regional Council, p. 18. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
8 Submissions to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from One Auckland Trust, 21 April 2008, p. 14, and from New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development.
9 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from P. Rouse and M. Putterill, University of Auckland Business School, p. 1.
10 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Papakura District Council, p. 27.
11 Office of the Auditor-General, Statements of corporate intent: Legislative compliance and performance reporting, June 2007, p. 19 (available at www.oag.govt.nz, accessed March 2009).
12 Ibid., p. 19.
13 London has a useful framework for measuring performance of continual improvement and efficiency work, through its “Capital Ambition” programme (see www.capitalambition.gov.uk, accessed March 2009).
14 See www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/cs-charter.asp (accessed March 2009).
15 Sir Michael Lyons, in his 2007 inquiry into Britain’s local government, Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government, at page 3 defines place-shaping as “the creative use of powers and influence to promote the general well-being of a community and its citizens.” See www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/indexc2c7.html (accessed March 2009).
16 State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, section 4(1).
17 See Treasury briefing paper to the incoming Minister of Finance 2008, The public sector will need to deliver more from existing resources (available at www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/briefings/2008/11.htm, accessed March 2009).
18 Transformational Government Enabled by Technology, report of the Chief Information Officers’ Council, commissioned by Prime Minister Tony Blair, London, November 2005, p. 3 (available at www.cio.gov.uk/documents/pdf/transgov, accessed March 2009).
19 There is extensive research and reporting on the potential benefits arising from shared and unified public service delivery. Useful reports include Environmental Scan – Efficiency of Back Office Functions in Local Government, Audit Commission, London, August 2007 (available at www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nationalstudies/downloads/BackOfficeEnvironmentalScan.pdf and Improving corporate functions using shared services, National Audit Office, London, November 2007 (available at www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/improving_corporate_functions.aspx, both accessed March 2009).
20 The New Zealand e-Government Interoperability Framework prescribes a coherent set of policies, protocols, and standards for use when sharing or integrating data, information, supporting information systems and business processes. See www.e.govt.nz/standards/e-gif.
21 Improving corporate functions using shared services, National Audit Office, London, November 2007, p. 18. In the United Kingdom a number of service facilities have commitments to deliver predetermined savings to their “customers” once they use shared service facilities. Pricing of services is competitive and reflects the full cost of the service delivery. See www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/improving_corporate_functions.aspx (accessed March 2009).
22 See Recommendation 32E.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |