https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/issue/feedPolicy Quarterly2025-03-06T20:23:51+00:00Institute for Governance and Policy Studiesjonathan.boston@vuw.ac.nzOpen Journal Systems<p class="Pa4"><em>Policy Quarterly (PQ)</em> is targeted at readers in the public sector, including politicians and their staff, public servants and a wide variety of professions, together with others interested in public issues. Its length and style are intended to make the journal accessible to busy readers.</p>https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9710The Growth in the Supply of Legislation in New Zealand2025-02-13T19:21:06+00:00Derek GillStevie ShipmanKarl Simpson<p>The number of words used in the New Zealand statutes has grown steadily since 1908, but dramatically from the 1960s. The growthrate is similar under both Labour and National administrations and does not coincide with conventional narratives of deregulation and re-regulation. This growth in the New Zealand statute book was not the result of technical factors such as plain language drafting or greater use of secondary rules. Instead, the growth reflects substantive factors, with increases in the depth and the breadth of regulation. Regulatory inflation and policy accumulation are general trends not unique to New Zealand. More research is needed to underpin careful stewardship of the stock of regulation without resorting to arbitrary policy rules such as a ‘two for one’ policy.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9711Regulatory Stewardship: an empirical view2025-02-13T19:40:14+00:00Denny Kudrna<p>Regulatory stewardship aims to ensure that various parts of a regulatory system work together to achieve its objectives, allowing regulators to keep the system fit for purpose over time. A novel dataset shows that regulatory stewardship is increasingly integrated into agency practices in New Zealand and has outlasted previous regulatory initiatives. Furthermore, regulatory systems amendment bills (RASBs) have doubled the rate of legislative adaptation, while broadening their scope and significance. Regulatory systems amendment bills provide a scalable model for tackling future regulatory challenges.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9712Drain the Swamp to Save the Swamp: mitigating capture in environmental regulatory systems2025-02-13T19:45:55+00:00Marie DooleTheo Stephens<p>Regulatory capture undermines the integrity and effectiveness of environmental regulatory systems by allowing the power of vested<br>interests to undermine the public interest in nature (i.e., humanity’s collective interest in a healthy and sustainable biosphere). Mitigating the capture of environmental regulatory systems necessitates a deliberate rebalancing of the power of different actors within a democratic context to reduce the typical dominance of vested interests. This rebalancing must address both the narrative framing and direct capture actions of vested interests (Ulucanlar et al., 2023). Cumulatively, the mitigation strategies we propose (promoting evidence-based policy, rigorous analysis, transparency and supporting public interest advocacy) will support that rebalancing.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9731Weathertightness, Economic Loss, Equity and Remedies2025-02-17T01:35:22+00:00Barry Mosley<p>New Zealand’s leaky housing crisis, generally associated with the period between 1995 and 2004, has left a legacy of costs which continue to thwart the provision of affordable and healthy housing. Furthermore, those displaced and financially harmed by the deregulation of building standards under the Building Act 1991 face arbitrary time frames in which to seek appropriate remedies. The model of applying a limitation defence in circumstances of systemic failure has contributed to inadequate accountability and weak incentives for performance in the building industry. This article explores the causes of the leaky housing crisis, including the political impetus to reduce building construction costs, and suggests how similar systemic failures can be avoided in the future.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9713Federal Workforce Reforms in Trump’s Second Term: two scenarios2025-02-13T19:51:39+00:00Karen Baehler<p>Five early proposals from the second Trump administration add up to a potentially dramatic shift of power within the executive branch of the federal government and between the executive and legislative branches. With help from conservative think tanks and the Republican-led Congress, the 2024 election has opened the door to an increasingly powerful US presidency and an ever-weaker constitutional order.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9725What Does a Second Trump Term Mean for US Environmental Policy?2025-02-16T22:46:31+00:00Daniel J. Fiorino<p>What can we expect in environmental, energy and climate policy from a second Trump term? Given the slim Republican majorities in the House and Senate, legislative change in core environmental laws is unlikely. The new administration’s impacts will be felt in budgets and regulatory actions under existing laws. Where there are statutory mandates, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, opportunities for deregulation will depend on the care taken to justify actions and the outcome of judicial reviews. The most significant effects of the new administration will occur in climate mitigation, where there is little existing law and the incoming president has expressed hostility to acting.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9726Minoritarian Co-governance in Rotorua District Thwarted by Pluralistic Majoritarianism, 2013–232025-02-16T22:55:12+00:00Reynold J.S. Macpherson<p>Based on qualitative research, including participant observation, this article examines Rotorua Lakes Council’s 2013–23 pursuit of 50/50 co-governance with Te Arawa iwi. Despite some Treaty-based support, public opinion leaned towards equal suffrage. Te Tatau o Te Arawa nominees were given places on council subcommittees with voting rights. Concerns over authoritarianism, financial mismanagement, secrecy and homelessness then spurred opposition to 50/50 co-governance. A 2021 local bill for full co-governance was denied over potential Bill of Rights conflicts. The Local Government Commission’s determination of proportional representation for Rotorua, using general, Māori and rural wards, highlights New Zealand’s struggle to balance majority rule and minority protections. Pluralistic majoritarianism is suggested as a pathway to more inclusive governance in local and central governance.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9727Using Council Valuation Records to Estimate Auckland’s housing stock2025-02-17T00:11:23+00:00James Allan JonesRyan Greenaway-McGrevyr.mcgrevy@auckland.ac.nzChris Crow<p>New Zealand lacks timely estimates of its total and regional dwelling stocks. Such estimates would be useful for evaluating various policies to encourage housing supply. To address this deficiency, we propose and implement a method for estimating Auckland’s dwelling stock based on its district valuation roll (DVR). The district valuation roll is an administrative dataset maintained by all local councils for the purpose of levying property taxes. The estimates imply that there were 609,055 dwellings in Auckland as of August 2024, an increase of about 91,000 units – or 18% – since the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in November 2016. We anticipate that DVR-based estimates can be constructed for other regions.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9728How Can We Make Independent Public Policy Institutions a Less Fragile Species?2025-02-17T00:20:03+00:00Bill Rosenberg<p>In late November 2023 the staff and commissioners of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Te Kōmihana Whai Hua o Aotearoa were shocked to learn that the newly elected coalition government would be abolishing the commission. It was disestablished just three months later, having functioned for 13 years. The commission’s primary task was to provide the government with independent policy advice, via inquiries requested by the government of the day. From an historical perspective, the commission’s closure was unfortunately par for the course. Few independent government institutions providing economic and social policy advice have survived even that long. This article explores the factors which contribute to these short lives, and the factors which contribute to the effectiveness of such institutions, and suggests ways in which they can be made less fragile.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9729‘Fortress New Zealand’: examining refugee status determination for 11,000 asylum claimants through integrated data2025-02-17T00:24:40+00:00Tim FadgenArezoo Zarintaj MalihiDeborah ManningHarry MillsJay Marlowe<p>This article presents a profile of Aotearoa New Zealand’s asylum claimants – people who have sought recognition as a refugee or protected person and then applied for a temporary visa. Sourcing data from New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), we considered 11,091 refugee claimants between 1997 and 2022. The data suggests that the path to recognition can be long and circuitous, requiring multiple applications before status recognition. The data also reveals a wide health and mental health services uptake gap despite recent policy changes. When read together, we contend that this data supports the notion that everyday, discerning bordering exists in New Zealand through different forms of permeability and permanence based on gender and ethnicity. The article concludes with some insights for future policy directions.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9730Te Aorerekura : towards eliminating family violence – reflections from the Atawhai project2025-02-17T00:46:08+00:00Elizabeth Eppelelizabeth.eppel@vuw.ac.nzClaire GearHazel HapeJane Koziol-McLainAnna RollestonNgareta TimutimuHori AhomiroClare HealyKelsey HegartyClaire Isham<p>Family violence is an under-recognised contributor to ill-health. Atawhai, a three-year research project focusing on sustainable responses to family violence in primary healthcare services, suggests that relationships and networks among locality-based service providers and local communities will help in making New Zealand’s strategy to eliminate family violence a reality. More is needed than joining up the government agencies delivering services to those experiencing family violence. Building relationships between communities and healthcare providers to harness the contextual and cultural knowledge of those most affected has to be integral to a sustainable response that begins to address the causes of this wicked problem, along with developing place-based solutions.</p>2025-02-17T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studieshttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9760Estimating the Additional Income Needed to Address Higher Deprivation Levels of Children in Households with Disabled People2025-03-06T20:23:51+00:00Moira WilsonKeith McLeodJonathan Godfrey<p>Children living in households with disabled people have a rate of material hardship three times that of children living in households<br>with no disabled people. The rate of severe material hardship is almost four times higher. This article aims to improve the evidence<br>base to inform policy responses to these inequities. It uses pooled Household Economic Survey data to estimate how much additional<br>income is needed to reduce levels of deprivation to match those of households with children with no disabled people. Examples of the<br>estimated additional income needed range from $8,400 to $24,000 per annum on an equivalised income basis and vary depending on<br>where the household’s income sits in the income distribution. The additional income needed is higher when there are two or more<br>disabled people in the household than when there is one disabled person.</p>2025-03-06T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2025 Institute for Governance and Policy Studies