Crown Entity Monitoring

1
Crown Entity Monitoring

• Nick Davis

2
Different types of Crown entity
Board independence
Policy independence
Crown Agents
Autonomous Crown Entities (ACEs)
Independent Crown Entities (ICEs)
3
What is Crown Entity Monitoring?
4
What does it involve?
5
How well do departments perform?

• Consider two reviews
• OAG Performance Audit of departments monitoring
  practices (2009)
• MartinJenkins Review of monitoring policies and
  practices (2006)

6
Auditor Generals Performance Audit

• 3 Departments
• Internal Affairs, Economic Development, Culture
  Heritage
• 9 Crown entities
• DIA (Fire Service, Office of Film Literature
  Classification)
• MCH (Creative NZ, Te Papa, SPARC)
• MED (Electricity Commission, Tourism NZ,
  Securities Commission, Standards NZ)

7
Auditor Generals Performance Audit

• Focus on day-to-day monitoring tasks
• Identification of issues and risks
• Planning and guidance material for monitoring
  activities
• Review of CE financial planning
• Advice on entity Statement of Intent
• Review and reporting on CE performance
• Support for board appointments processes
• Overall findings
• Departments reasonably positioned to support
  Ministers
• However, clear room for improvement
• Departments fell short of what AG expected in
  some areas

8
Auditor Generals Performance Audit

• Common areas of weakness across departments
• Insufficient focus on robustness of CE financial
  planning
• Lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities
  for CE monitoring
• Monitoring not consistently informed by
  information about risks
• Advice about SOI and performance not always
  relevant or timely
• Poor relationships inhibiting effective
  monitoring
• In short, weaknesses in a number of core areas

9
MartinJenkins Review

• 9 Departments
• Building and Housing, Internal Affairs, Labour,
  Health, Culture and Heritage, Education, Economic
  Development, Transport, Treasury
• 57 Crown entities

10
MartinJenkins Review

• Overall findings
• Departments have good appreciation of their
  responsibilities, but wide variation in how
  monitoring functions performed
• Practices consistent with central agency guidance
  but too much emphasis on low level
  checklist-driven monitoring
• Insufficient appreciation for the spirit of CE
  governance model

11
MartinJenkins Review

• Common areas of weakness across departments
• Weak mandates translate into weak monitoring
• Board appointment and induction needs
  strengthening
• Managing for Outcomes an area of weakness
• Performance-based monitoring approaches can build
  trust
• Effective monitoring requires collaboration and
  support
• Mainstreaming monitoring offers some benefits
• Quality of monitoring hinges on strong
  relationships

12
Conclusions

• Departments need the following to be effective CE
  monitors
• Clear understanding of their monitoring role and
  functions
• Constructive and robust working relationships
• Good overall sector knowledge
• Sound processes and mechanisms for day-to-day
  work
• A risk-based approach
• Good mutual understanding of what good
  performance looks like
• Supportive approach
• Its not rocket science!

13
Conclusions

• Systemic issues need to be addressed
• Change culture around Crown entity monitoring
• Lift relationships to Board level
• Shifting towards a more collaborative approach
• Improve knowledge retention and staffing
  continuity
• Support entities to improve Managing for Outcomes
  practices

14
Thank you
15
About MartinJenkins

• New Zealand-owned consulting firm providing
  services to clients in the public, private and
  not-for-profit sectors
• Overriding goal to build the management
  capability of the organisations we work with.
• We providing services in the areas of
• organisational strategy, design and change
• public policy and issues management
• evaluation and research
• financial and economic analysis
• human resource management
• For further information visit www.martinjenkins.co
  .nz
• or email nick.davis_at_martinjenkins.co.nz