Administrative philosophies in the discourse and decisions of the New Zealand public service: is post-New Public Management still a myth?

New Zealand is frequently cited as the archetypical example of New Public Management (NPM), having gone ‘further and faster’ than other jurisdictions in radically reforming their public service in the late 1980s. These reforms have been credited with significant gains in efficiency and responsiveness, while introducing new challenges. Successive reforms over the past 30 years tinkered with the model without fundamentally altering the underlying paradigm, such that authors refer to the ‘myth of post-NPM in New Zealand’. In 2020, New Zealand repealed and replaced its main public service legislation. By textually analysing government documents, this article explores the different theoretical roots of New Zealand's ongoing administrative reforms and debates the extent of their theoretical coherence. The Act directly dialogues with and draws inspiration from recent academic debates, drawing from a range of sources (such as New Public Governance, Digital Era Governance, and the New Public Service). Points for practitioners New Zealand has long been regarded as the purest example of New Public Management (NPM). Legislation passed in 2020 saw New Zealand adopt a range of reforms described in the literature as ‘post-NPM’, while also reaffirming features associated with Traditional Public Administration (TPA). While New Zealand has moved away from a pure NPM model and adopted features associated with Post-NPM, Post-NPM is not a coherent doctrine and it may only be possible to identify administrative doctrines retrospectively. We may be entering a period of ‘New Public Complexity’, where administrative doctrines are blended and layered