18. How are we measuring progress? See 4 above. Additionally, full implementation of the right to a decent home may be progressively realised over time. The United Nations confirms that progressive realisation, or the lack of it, can and should be tracked by using suitable indicators and benchmarks. In line with 4 above, the indicators require disaggregation by ethnicity, disability, gender, and other grounds. For more information on progressive realisation, indicators, and benchmarks, see the Human Rights Commission’s Guidelines29 and our Measuring Progress work (as outlined in Appendix B). MAIHI Ka Ora, Ka Mārama, the Māori Housing Dashboard, provides access to consistent, reliable data to support whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations and shows the progress that’s being made across the Māori housing continuum.30 The new He Oranga Kāinga, He Oranga Hapori – Housing and Urban Development Indicators just launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development are also designed to measure progress towards the long-term goals in the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development and MAIHI Ka Ora.31 Step 5: Monitoring and evaluation Monitor effectiveness of the selected policies and identify how we can make improvements 19. Are the selected policies subject to periodic independent review against key checkpoints? First, sometimes it’s argued that a robust, dispassionate review is sufficient, and the review need not be independent, but there are some advantages in having an independent review. It’s a matter of optics: it doesn’t look good if officials are ‘marking their own homework’. Neither does it inspire confidence if officials are reviewing the work of other officials. An independent review carries more authority. Also, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to be entirely self-critical if, for example, career progression or other benefits may be affected. Further, fresh eyes sometimes bring fresh insights from which all parties can benefit. A totally independent perspective, submitted to a wider review, is much preferred. Second, independent reviews should not be about blame and punishment. They should be about identifying what works so policies can be continued and extended and what is not working (not reaching the key checkpoints) so rational policy adjustments can be made. For more information on monitoring, review, and remedial action – constructive accountability – see the Human Rights Commission’s Guidelines.32 20. How will progress, periodic reviews, and lessons learned loop back into the policy cycle? This is critically important. Contexts change. New research emerges. Lessons are learned. Good policy making is dynamic. Policies should be living documents. The five-step policy process is cyclical, not linear, so a simple arrangement is needed whereby progress, periodic reviews (including an independent perspective) and lessons learned are fed back into a refreshed policy cycle. 22 Human Rights Commission