Delivering on the IEB’s priorities

Interdepartmental executive boards are intended to align policy advice and coordinate work across agencies. This means the IEB needs to consider how their work programme will be delivered through member agencies and how they source the advice they need to make decisions on that work. This will involve members balancing their role on the IEB with the accountability they retain for the work of their individual agencies. This section outlines matters the IEB could consider planning delivery against their priorities. These build on the considerations from the previous section around the IEB’s secretariat support, and the later section on servicing department arrangements.

Interdepartmental executive boards can take many shapes and forms. The nature of the specific IEB and its purpose will likely have a bearing on the matters in this section. For example, the Spatial Planning Reform Board was initially set up as a time limited IEB with oversight of a subcomponent of a broader project (one piece of legislation from a package of broader reforms). IEBs that have been established on a permanent basis could be regularly reviewed to ensure their purpose, scope and membership remain appropriate.

The Commissioner selects the membership of the IEB from the agencies listed in the remit of the Order in Council that establishes the IEB. This means that there may be some agencies within the remit who are not members of the IEB (see earlier section on ‘Membership of the IEB’). The IEB may need to manage these relationships, as well as possible relationships with external stakeholders engaging on specific matters.

IEBs should think about how they manage these relationships, and what the right level of involvement is for key stakeholders. This section outlines some of the more commonly used options as a starting point:

• The IEB may invite attendance (in a non-decision-making capacity) at specific meetings.
• If the IEB considers appropriate (for example in the case of other central government agencies), stakeholders may be able to have representatives present at deputy chief executive meetings, or other cross-agency working groups of officials.
• If the stakeholders are seeking more of an information sharing relationship, the IEB may wish to consider sharing relevant papers via a mailing list of interested parties, or otherwise connecting other parties with their secretariat/support unit.

Reflecting the arrangements of an IEB at the deputy chief executive (DCE) level has proven an effective strategy for some existing IEBs. Running IEB work through the DCE level can help manage the workload of the IEB itself, working through the background and consultation of more challenging policy issues and trade-offs, and allowing the IEB to focus at the strategic and political level. DCE groups may include agencies within the remit but not on the IEB, and agencies outside the remit. Where relevant DCEs work together regularly on other matters, it may be possible to avoid duplication by using an existing DCE group to consider IEB work.

IEBs may also find it helpful to establish working groups of officials from across agencies and other stakeholders as appropriate. These groups may be targeted to specific work programme items, or they may be forums to progress a range of work. Where an IEB is using multiple working groups to progress different work programme items, a DCE group might play a coordinating role, ensuring alignment with IEB’s purpose and goals and acting as a conduit between different elements of the work programme. The IEB’s secretariat or support unit may also play a role like this, depending on their capacity and capability.

As noted above, working groups can be an effective avenue for involving relevant stakeholders, from both within and outside the public service.

Like any public service agency, IEBs need to prepare strategic intentions (unless granted a waiver – see section on accountability under the Public Finance Act above) and annual reports and it’s highly likely that delivering on those priorities will require some way of assessing progress. Where the IEB administers an appropriation, they will need to report on what is achieved with that appropriation using the appropriate performance measures. The Cabinet process that establishes an IEB and makes decisions on its purpose, scope and functions may also include clear actions against which the IEB’s progress could be assessed.

Alternatively, the IEB may determine priority assessment criteria for themselves. For example, the Spatial Planning Reform Board had three key indicators in their 2021/22 annual report to measure their performance against their original purpose:

• Introduction of new legislation to Parliament
• The Government has a robust, evidence-based reform rationale
• Central and local government have access to technical support and capacity

Te Puna Aonui (the IEB for the elimination of family violence and sexual violence) had several clear actions in their functions, including the development of a National Strategy and Action Plan. They intended to track and publicly report progress against the Action Plan, as well as complete an outcomes framework and a learning and monitoring system to help them measure progress. The Border Executive Board used ministerial satisfaction, a work programme around risk and improvements, and a deadline for the completion of a strategy as their measures.

Where an IEB is especially integrated into its organisational environment, it may be linked up with agencies’ individual planning processes and may therefore be able to draw data to measure success from those individual agencies. The performance of the IEB as a whole also feeds into the process for individual chief executive performance reviews.

As noted in the Supplementary Guidance Note, interdepartmental executive boards send a clear signal about the intention to take a collective approach to cross-cutting issues. While the IEB will have a single lead Minister (appropriate minister for the IEB), it may be helpful for Ministers of departments within the remit of the IEB to also work collectively. The IEB may wish to provide advice to the lead minister on options for ensuring alignment at a ministerial level, including the possibility of a more formal ministerial grouping that reflects the IEB’s membership. Such a grouping could simplify and expedite approval processes for the IEB’s work and would most likely follow established processes for joint decisions between ministers.