Setting targets for Government action – often an exercise in futility

OPINION: If you want to give an appearance of action, a common response in Government is to simply set some targets.  Very often the targets are not connected to any strategy for achieving the targets or the strategy for implementation is either not spelt out, is not specifically resourced or has large holes in it. But often that is beside the point, particularly if the targets are mainly a PR or political exercise and probably won’t happen anyway.  And that is too often the case.

There are several ways (much longer than this list I am sure) targets like this can be generated.

One way is to make the targets very complicated so that they sound good but have very little substance when you get into the detail.  The targets set for water quality are like this and that was one reason for the environmentalists walking away from the recent strategy setting exercise in disgust.  In fact NZ’s water quality is very poor for the size of the country and this was pointed out in yet another key report a few weeks ago.  The tragedy of this is that population wise we are so small.  How could only 5 million people or so make such a poor effort when similar sized countries in (say) Europe are trying to cope with the problems caused by populations of 50 million plus?  But we have yet to really address the issue.

A second favourite strategy – which I have mentioned before – is to set long term targets – say 20 years plus.  In some cases, this may be fair enough – in some areas it takes a long time to achieve results because there is such a lot of inertia in the system.  Changing the national vehicle fleet is a bit like that and of course vulnerable children take a long time to grow into adults that may be the cause of social problems.  But more often long time lags make the target meaningless.  By the time, you get there things will probably have changed so much the target is irrelevant, or may never have been achievable in the first place.

Another favourite approach is to assume that the private sector will achieve the stated target given the right incentives and signals.  This approach is a great generator of endless committees and conferences, all of which consume resources that would have been better invested directly into solutions for the problem.

However, there was a refreshing difference in the targets announced by Bill English about a week ago on dealing with social issues such as reducing poverty, education and so on.  In most cases the targets were obviously well thought through, they were relevant and in principle they were achievable in reasonable lengths of time.  The only criticism is that they lacked some detail but maybe that will come.  The targets were an outcome of the Government’s “investment approach” to social issues.

Honesty and some substance like this in setting targets is what is badly needed.

But it needs to be followed up by honest and responsible monitoring.  We need to see how we are doing at regular intervals and be prepared to change the approach, if necessary, to keep the goals achievable and in sight.  That’s the bit we have never been that good at because it involves real accountability and a willingness to admit mistakes and make changes accordingly.  Maybe this time things will be different.

By Bas Walker

This is another of Bas Walker’s posts on GrownUps.  Please look out for his articles, containing his Beachside Ponderings.