Join! it's $20

New Zealand Independent Commission of Policy Information and Analysis

New Zealand Independent Commission of Policy Information and Analysis

Create and properly fund an independent commission tasked with providing research on current and proposed government policy and publishing the resulting information and analysis. The commission would do different job from Statistics NZ, and The. Parliamentary Library and a more comprehensive, reliable and independent one than existing government entities. It would help force politicians to debate the issues rather than argue over the relevance and accuracy of figures, and allow the public to hold the government to account for its actions.

Showing 21 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?

Sign in with

Or sign in with email

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
    • Dennis Ingram
      tagged this with interesting 2016-12-03 17:48:46 +1300
    • Matt Walkington
      commented 2016-12-02 18:15:12 +1300
      I omitted to stress some of the main values of this policy.

      The Commission would be designed to to work in a way that was independent but that also had buy in from and cooperation with the various political parties. It would consult the public and use a wide range of resources, evidence and research. And it would work with government departments and entities, and any other organisations it needed to.

      So, it would have a very central role in seeking to use evidence to support policy.

      The hope would be that with the aid of the Commission politicians and political parties would then have a reason to stop bickering over figures, so that the debate could be over the actual merits of policies.

      I think the idea of the Commission is exact what TOP is all about – evidence based policy and focusing on policy not personality politics.
    • Robert Murray
      commented 2016-11-30 23:39:09 +1300
      We used to have one – I think it was called the Future Commission: it was ignored and eventually a govt disliked what they were saying enough to abolish it. Plenty of advice is still ignored.
    • John Rusk
      commented 2016-11-30 21:33:07 +1300
      I’m skeptical whether such an organization would act with the necessary combination of competence, independence and bravery. Rather than a government monopoly on this work, it may be safer to leave it to independent voices, such as the Morgan Foundation has been in recent years.
    • John Rusk
      tagged this with dislike 2016-11-30 21:33:06 +1300
    • Alan Barraclough
      commented 2016-11-29 21:48:21 +1300
      Parliament is just talk between politicians .. where do videos powerpoints scientific viewpoint and actual eveidence get into the debate. the actual conduct of the chamber is archaic and technologically feeble. The IQ , qualifications and actual vested interests of politicians should be printed under their bame on the ballot paper !
    • Alan Barraclough
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-29 21:48:20 +1300
    • Phil Marshall
      commented 2016-11-29 01:30:38 +1300
      I really like this idea. Part of the mandate of such a commission in my opinion should be to draw on examples overseas of effective and ineffective policies, something I think is missing. Two areas of particular focus for me would be health and education. I personally would like to see us do away with these as Ministerial portfolios and have them run by people who know what they are doing but that is another discussion. Re Mahurangi, I don’t think it is an either/or – both for me.
    • Phil Marshall
      tagged this with important 2016-11-29 01:30:37 +1300
    • Phil Marshall
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-29 01:30:37 +1300
    • Matt Walkington
      commented 2016-11-28 23:14:52 +1300
      I think “corrupt” is too strong a word. There’s no need for corruption, just the pressure to please your master and the ability to be selective or biased.
      Officials and public sector workers of all flavors are clearly influenced by the political requirements of the government of the day. They are very constrained from presenting dissenting analysis.
      An independent commission would not be constrained to be selective or biased in any way with its information and analysis. That is the beauty of it.
    • Rohan Light
      tagged this with important 2016-11-28 16:53:13 +1300
    • Cimino Cole
      commented 2016-11-28 14:20:57 +1300
      While an independent commission on policy has obvious merit, what is problematic is the likely response by the government of the day. Government’s typically woeful response to the gutsy, evidence-based policy recommendations of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for example, suggests that, first and foremost, it is Opportunities Party Parliamentary clout that is required.
    • Cimino Cole
      tagged this with low priority 2016-11-28 14:20:57 +1300
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      commented 2016-11-28 14:04:12 +1300
      Changes dislike to interesting.
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      tagged this with interesting 2016-11-28 14:04:11 +1300
    • duncan cairncross
      commented 2016-11-28 13:52:08 +1300
      This is a great idea!
      I personally believe that our current government agencies are NOT biased or corrupt but a separate agency with some mechanisms to keep it separate and independant would remove doubt (and temptation)
      We already have PHARMAC which does a similar job for the medical requirements so we should be able to sort something out to to this
      I would suggest maximum transparency with all of the algorithms used being published and available for anybody to do and re-analysis
      If any of the necessary information/data is privately owned we should be able to “buy” it – some sort of compulsory purchase legislation for information would be a good idea
      Get away from the “commercially confidential” smokescreen that is often used today
      That would be useful for PHARMAC as well
    • duncan cairncross
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-28 13:52:07 +1300
    • Duncan Stuart
      tagged this with interesting 2016-11-28 12:55:07 +1300
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      commented 2016-11-28 07:27:10 +1300
      This assumes that our current government agencies are bias or corrupt. I don’t believe that is the case. I believe that we have good and impartial agencies. I wonder if we listen to what they say enough though.
    • Matt Walkington
      published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-28 00:02:29 +1300