Published on the 16/07/2026 | Written by Heather Wright

Poor prioritisation, duplication and projects falling short…

New Zealand’s public sector technology system has been criticised as poorly informed, poorly coordinated and overly focused on process, with a government-commissioned review calling for a wholesale reset of how digital investment is prioritised and delivered.

The scathing ‘rapid review’ – commissioned by Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche after the Government Digital Delivery Agency (GDDA), which previously sat under the Department of Internal Affairs, was moved under the Public Service Commission – found widespread concerns about the way technology projects are governed, funded and managed across government. It concluded the system lacks visibility into the nature and value of technology investment, struggles to coordinate major projects and has a central digital function that is focused more on administration than strategic leadership.

“This review gives us a clear picture of what’s working and what’s not.”

The findings are unusually blunt for a government review.

Among the more damning observations were comments from agency leaders who said the GDDA often failed to provide the expertise or leadership needed to deliver projects.

One agency leader quoted in the report says the central digital function had simply helped them ‘admire the problem’ without making project delivery any easier. Another says the organisations focused on process, rather than outcomes, while others questioned its ability to broker common solutions across agencies.

The review, which was led by former Auckland Airport chief executive Adrian Littlewood, Justin Gray (former managing director of Datacom) and transformation advisor and former Kāinga Ora CEO Matt Crockett, found the problems ran deeper than any single agency. It identified a fragmented system, lacking complete and timely information and missing the urgency to drive change, despite investing $42 million a year in the central digital function. The system was characterised by fragmented accountability, duplicated investment, weak prioritisation and poor information. Agencies were found to be pursuing similar projects independently, competing for scarce technology resources and in some cases building systems that could have been shared across government.

Examples cited in the review include multiple agencies pursuing digital identification initiatives with limited coordination, an agency developing its own payments system rather than reusing existing and mature payment systems operated by another agency, and two related organisations – in the same building – tendering for new systems independently before wider integration issues were considered.

The report notes these issues have emerged despite the existence of a central digital foundation intended to identify common opportunities and drive all-of-government outcomes.

Perhaps most concerning is the review’s conclusion that government lacks reliable information about its own technology investments.

“It was hard to get fundamental metrics to judge performance of tech investment across the agencies and there was limited understanding on baseline tech spend funded through appropriations vs project spending,” the report notes.  Existing reporting was described as largely focused on expenditure and activity, rather than business outcomes and public value. Limited central visibility into agency spending – with ‘skunk-works’ projects hidden in budgets and financial reporting, is also creating accountability problems, with some tech initiatives effectively hidden within operational budgets.

The review says this lack of information makes it harder to prioritise projects, assess risk and direct investment to the areas likely to generate the greatest benefit.

While the report focuses on public service IT, many of the problems it highlights will sound familiar to enterprise leaders. Large organisations frequently face similar challenges around technology sprawl, competing priorities, duplicated systems and limited visibility of investment outcomes. The challenge of balancing business unit autonomy against enterprise-wide standards is hardly unique to the public sector.

But the review highlights how much more difficult the issues become when multiple agencies, funding streams and ministerial priorities are involved.

It’s also highly critical of the current funding and approval process, saying the existing model is designed for large capital infrastructure projects rather than the fast-moving, iterative nature of modern digital delivery. Agencies often struggle to obtain funding for smaller technology initiatives, leading some to seek approval for larger projects than necessary, hide smaller discretionary projects within IT operating budgets, delay sensible upgrades or allow tech debt to grow.

The review argues current settings can actively discourage investment and innovation.

It notes agencies face lengthy approval processes while governance structures often lack the authority to make meaningful decisions or resolve trade-offs across government. Interviewees described a culture where avoiding mistakes is rewarded more than delivering value and where activity can become a substitute for outcomes.

The review also notes that engagement with tech providers is inconsistent and does not support long-term partnerships or co-investment.

Resetting for digital delivery

Roache says the review provides a solid base for a reset as part of the work to transform the public sector.

“This review gives us a clear picture of what’s working and what’s not,” he says.

To address the issues the review proposes a three-part reset.

The first focuses on prioritisation, including an assessment – led by GDDA with support from Treasury and key agencies – of digital projects across government and the reallocation of resources towards higher-value initiatives. Low-value or conflicting projects could be paused or retired, with investment concentrated on programs deemed most likely to deliver impact. Identifying ways to ‘self-fund’ new investment by reprioritising existing funding and making short-term operating and process changes that deliver ahead of new technology is also a key output identified.

The second focused on repositioning the GDDA itself. Rather than acting as a project delivery organisation, the agency would become a smaller, but more capable, strategic authority responsible for standards, assurance, architecture, procurement and system-wide capability. Delivery responsibility would sit with lead agencies, while the GDDA would be expected to provide expertise, direction and accountability, retaining lead on strategic procurement via a panel model for common/functional services such as cloud.

The third track targets structural reform across government, including changes to funding models, governance arrangements, accountability frameworks and reporting requirements. Legislative changes could also be considered to provide clear boundaries or support for critical enabling tech projects, such as ‘bundled consent’ options for citizen data.

The review also recommends more consistent measurement of technology costs, performance and benefits across agencies.

Underlying the recommendations is a belief that technology should be treated less as an IT function and more as a driver of productivity and service transformation.

The report cites Inland Revenue’s business transformation as evidence that major gains are possible when governance, funding and delivery settings are aligned. It also highlights potentially significant productivity opportunities in areas such as health, where technology-enabled improvements could generate substantial efficiencies if barriers to delivery were removed.

The message from the review is straightforward: New Zealand does not necessarily have a technology spending problem. It has a prioritisation, governance and execution problem.

The government’s proposed digital reset aims to fix that. Whether it succeeds may depend on whether the public sector can do something the report suggests it has struggled with for years: Stop talking about transformation and start delivering it.

Roche says he will consider the findings of the review before making decisions on ‘a way forward’.