Taxpayer Value Score
Which government agencies deliver the best value for taxpayer funding? Composite 0-100 score based on 7 measurable dimensions from annual report data.
62
Average Score (0-100)
0
agencies
7
agencies
14
agencies
0
agencies
0
agencies
Central Government | Good Value
100
70
45
95
95
15
100
Central Government | Good Value
84
95
50
60
80
60
50
Crown Entities | Good Value
78
70
45
95
80
75
86
Crown Entities | Good Value
100
25
90
60
70
60
65
Crown Entities | Good Value
48
95
30
80
80
95
93
Central Government | Good Value
50
95
30
95
80
60
79
Central Government | Good Value
50
70
75
60
95
60
79
Crown Entities | Adequate
50
95
30
95
70
60
65
Central Government | Adequate
50
70
60
60
80
75
57
Central Government | Adequate
50
95
45
60
70
60
50
Crown Entities | Adequate
86
50
50
25
70
60
65
Central Government | Adequate
50
40
75
80
80
60
79
Central Government | Adequate
50
25
90
95
70
60
72
Central Government | Adequate
50
55
60
60
95
60
50
Crown Entities | Adequate
50
55
75
25
70
60
65
Central Government | Adequate
50
50
60
60
70
60
65
Central Government | Adequate
50
25
90
60
70
60
43
Crown Entities | Adequate
50
25
75
80
65
60
50
Central Government | Adequate
50
40
90
60
70
15
50
Central Government | Adequate
50
80
60
40
45
15
79
Central Government | Adequate
50
25
60
60
70
60
58
Methodology (v1.0)
The Taxpayer Value Score is a composite 0-100 rating derived from 7 weighted components, each backed by publicly available data from agency annual reports.
Did the agency deliver what it promised to Parliament? Based on performance measures under PBE FRS 48.
Cost per FTE benchmarked against sector peers. Sector-adjusted to compare like-with-like.
Revenue or services per FTE. Measures output intensity relative to sector median.
Variance from budget. Both underspend (failure to deliver) and overspend (poor planning) score poorly.
Lower is better. High consultant reliance suggests capability gaps. PSC target: <5%.
Unplanned turnover rate. NZ PS average ~12%. High turnover = knowledge loss + recruitment cost.
Data disclosure completeness + audit opinion. Stronger reporting = stronger accountability.
Sector-relative adjustment: Cost and productivity scores are compared within sector groups (Social, Justice, Economic, etc.) rather than across the whole public service.
Limitations: KPIs are self-reported; single-year snapshot; revenue ≠ outcomes for transfer agencies; no citizen satisfaction data (future v1.1). Score indicates operational efficiency, not policy quality.
References: NZ Treasury PIF Framework, OECD "Government at a Glance" (2023), UK NAO "Value for Money" methodology, Australian ANAO performance audit framework.
Data sourced from publicly available NZX filings and annual reports. Our datasets may not be complete. Automated analysis can produce errors. Scores are calculated using disclosed methodology and are analytical tools, not investment ratings or recommendations. If you believe any data on this page is incorrect, please contact us at hello@nzxplorer.co.nz. For informational purposes only. Not investment advice.