Public-policy decisions often create consequences that unfold across decades rather than electoral cycles. Wales has chosen to embed long‑term considerations into its machinery of government through a dedicated Act and an independent Future Generations Commissioner. In this article, our wonderful TupuToa intern Lourdes Fouvaa considers whether Aotearoa needs similar institutions, or whether existing ones achieve similar goals.
What Wales has done
In 2015, Wales introduced the Well‑being of Future Generations Act, which requires public bodies to consider long‑term wellbeing across economic, social, environmental, and cultural dimensions.
The Act sets out seven national wellness goals and five “ways of working”, and it establishes an independent Future Generations Commissioner to provide advice, scrutiny, and public reporting. Agencies are encouraged by these arrangements to go beyond immediate demands and explain how actions today impact outcomes tomorrow.
The framework has influenced real decisions. The most recognised example is the cancellation of the proposed M4 Relief Road, a huge motorway expansion deemed inconsistent with long‑term environmental and wellbeing goals. The framework has also contributed to the Welsh government re-evaluating other transport projects under the Act.
The Welsh model: not yet completely tested
However, the Welsh model has important limitations. While the Act has spanned numerous elections, its political endurance remains unclear. The Welsh Labour Party has led every government since 1999, so the Future Generations regime has never been challenged under a change of government.
Welsh opposition parties, particularly the Welsh Conservatives, have generally been suspicious of the Act. They’ve stated that although the principle of long‑term thinking is sound, the framework can be used to rationalise desired political outcomes rather than objectively improve them. Since the Act is not entrenched, it could be drastically reinterpreted or completely repealed by a future administration.
What’s “good” for the future?
A further challenge is that there is no single definition of what is “good” for future generations. Stopping a freeway is presented as a long-term victory in Wales. But in Aotearoa, with our housing scarcity and infrastructural shortfalls, encouraging development in transport infrastructure might equally be considered good for future generations.
Political values shape what different governments consider to be responsible long‑term choices. For instance, one viewpoint would contend that limiting mining preserves landscapes for future generations, while another might contend that allowing mining creates income for infrastructure that will benefit future generations. These fundamentally political issues cannot be reconciled by a statutory "future generations" paradigm.
These characteristics do not lessen the importance of long‑term thinking. Rather, they underline that the Welsh model rests inside a specific political context and is not necessarily a universal template, as its durability under a different political context remains untested. That should be acknowledged when we draw lessons for Aotearoa.
The mining example raises rather than answers the question whether a similar framework would support longer‑term thinking and decision making in Aotearoa.
New Zealand’s existing long‑term landscape
Without question, considering the long-term impacts of policymaking is crucial. However, Aotearoa already incorporates long-term thinking into a variety of institutions and procedures.
The Climate Change Response Act 2002 sets a 2050 emissions target and requires carbon budgets and adaptation planning, supported by an independent Climate Change Commission. The Resource Management Act 1991, which for now is still the key legislation controlling the management of natural and physical resources, provides the framework for long-term environmental planning in Aotearoa.
Beyond those Acts and institutions, many sectors already use strategic frameworks (health, education, transportation, energy, and conservation), and many Acts include purpose statements oriented to long-term stewardship. Regulatory Impact Analysis also provides a platform for agencies to evaluate long‑term and intergenerational implications when considering regulatory changes.
Further, future effects are often evaluated across the system since business cases and Budget bids call for descriptions of benefits over time. Analysis of population implications is currently included in Cabinet papers, offering another platform for drawing long-term impacts to the attention of decision makers.
Independent watchdogs such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment monitor long‑term environmental trends, while regulatory stewardship requirements encourage agencies to maintain and improve regulatory systems over time. Intergenerational thinking is even evident in the way infrastructure is funded: debt is frequently used to ensure that future generations that benefit from durable, long-term assets also pay for them.
Taken together, these mechanisms form a substantial long‑term governance system, even if they are not organised under a single overarching framework. This suggests that Aotearoa doesn't in fact have a gap when it comes to tools to support long-term thinking. It suggests instead that we could look at how to strengthen and better integrate the tools we already have.
A Future Generations Commissioner in Aotearoa? Or an opportunity to strengthen without starting again?
The best strategy might be to improve current procedures rather than establish new ones if the objective is to make long-term thinking more consistent. Many of the benefits associated with the Welsh approach might be achieved through simple, low‑cost improvements.
For instance, the Regulatory Impact Statement template might be modified to require a clearer description of the long-term advantages, hazards, and trade-offs. Cabinet papers could include a distinct “Impact on Future Generations” section, which would boost exposure of long‑term considerations without incurring significant administrative complexity. These improvements would be more flexible and easier to manage than would be achieved by establishing a new Commissioner or drafting a new Act.
Long-term decision making also heavily relies on democratic accountability. In the end, voters determine whether governments are making decisions that will benefit their children and grandkids. Any long‑term policy approach must operate with, not overrule, this essential democratic function.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a practical and contextual starting point
Te Tiriti o Waitangi gives an important foundation for long‑term stewardship in Aotearoa. Ideas like kaitiakitanga highlight obligations to future generations and the long-term preservation of both people and the environment. Te Tiriti is often described as a living document: signed in 1840 but interpreted and applied to contemporary challenges that evolve across generations.
Any Future Generations-type approach adopted in New Zealand would need to consider the long-term effects of policy on Māori as tāngata whenua and look at whether long-term impacts were consistent with the Crown’s Treaty obligations. However, long-term impacts also affect other groups, so any analysis must take into account the interests of both Māori and wider society.
Where this leaves Aotearoa
Wales gives a fascinating illustration of how long‑term thinking might be framed. It seems to work well for Wales. However, as well as being shaped by its own unique context, the Future Generations framework remains somewhat untested given the dominance of the Welsh Labour Party, and it is potentially vulnerable to a change in government.
Aotearoa already has several long‑term policy tools ingrained across the system. If greater long-term thinking would be desirable here, the opportunity is to strengthen and connect these instruments, rather than copy an overseas model.
Aotearoa could continue to enhance how actions taken today impact outcomes for future generations by improving current procedures, referring and linking to Te Tiriti, and fostering public discourse about the long-term issues we face. Public conversations, including those supported by Tomorrow Together, draw attention to the desire to improve long-term thinking in our governing structures in Aotearoa.
The question is not whether we should implement a Welsh-style system, but rather how we can make the most of the resources at our disposal to leave a responsible and significant legacy for future generations.
Lourdes Fouvaa will shortly complete her summer internship at MartinJenkins and resume her studies completing a Master of Business Analysis at Victoria University.
