Some state sector reform
March 6th, 2010 at 12:14 pm by David FarrarEmily Watt and Colin Espiner report:
The Government is planning a shake-up of state services, with mergers expected in Internal Affairs, MAF and the science sector.
It is not clear how many jobs will be lost, but “back office” functions such as human resources, IT, payroll and communications are likely to be cut back to avoid duplication.
The Dominion Post has been told there will be three mergers, which are to be announced on Wednesday and will see departments, ministries and agencies folded into each other.
Sources say space has been booked at the National Library to announce the formation of what they are calling a Ministry of Information, which would roll National Library and National Archives into the Internal Affairs Department. It is understood Land Information New Zealand and Statistics had also been considered in that merger.
Oh I would so love to be Minister of Information. That would just be the best title, next to Minister of Propaganda. Imagine the first class treatment you would get in all the despotic regimes around the world, when your business card declares you are the New Zealand Minister of Information.
The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry is also due for a shake-up with the Food Safety Authority, with an annual budget of $99.6m, expected to be brought back under its roof.
The science sector will also come under the scalpel, with the Foundation of Research, Science & Technology and Research, Science & Technology Ministry being merged.
I’m delighted to see even this minor reform as it heads in the right direction. We do not need 200+ state sector CEOs, and 200+ IT systems, 200+ HR systems etc. In my ideal would you would have all agencies grouped within a dozen super-ministries.
Mr Robertson said it appeared Mr Key had broken his pre-election promise not to radically reorganise the public service.
Oh Grant. This is not radical. Three small mergers is a welcome but cautious step. It is such a shame to see Labour oppose every measure to reduce bureaucratic duplication and costs in the state sector. Their sole state sector policy seems to be to borrow and spend more money.
Labour should welcome these changes, as they continue a trend started under Labour to bring smaller agencies together. National went the other way in the 1990s and in hindsight got it wrong. Again it is a pity to see Labour oppose something they should support.
The Public Service Association has not been briefed on the plans, but said it was supportive of the Government “sticking things back together” after several decades of splitting departments up.
Indeed. On this one, I agree with the PSA.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
That would just be the best title, next to Minister of Propaganda. Imagine the first class treatment you would get in all the despotic regimes around the world, when your business card declares you are the New Zealand Minister of Information.
To avoid this problem, perhaps the position should be called the Minister of Truth instead?
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The justice area could be rebundled – corrections and justice with potentially big gains in back office functions. Corrections has shown some weaknesses at the corporate level. And then the SSC could take over IT and personnel for a number of the smaller Govt Departments. And then Environment and Conservation, the list goes on.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I think these are good moves. Why the archives and library should be separate, I cannot imagine.
And as a scientist, I am pleased with the suggestions for MRST and FRST. It also looks like the government is moving away from CRIs that compete commercially instead of being primarily concerned with science for the benefit of New Zealand.
When I first arrived in NZ many years ago, DSIR had a good relationship with farmers, at least so far as I could tell, but the drive for commercialization ruined that relationship. Farmers were suddenly faced with paying for information and research results that they thought, rightfully I think, that they had already paid for with taxes etc. It also stopped all scientists (because unis followed suit) simply going out and helping the community. We were supposed to charge for whatever we did for whoever we did it for. (Apologies for that last awkward sentence.)
So I think those are some positive moves. Research results cannot be dictated and we never know where progress will result, and the silo mentality promoted by competition amongst CRIs, and between CRIs and universities does not promote progress.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I personally would like to see the Women’s Affairs Ministry merge into the MSD (it’s just not really needed anymore as a separate entity) , it could function much better as a office of the MSD like the community, Senior citizens and youth devlopemnt portfolios are. The conservation department and ministry of Environment should be merged together because they essentially do the same things,. Personally I am not a fan of merging Justice and Corrections but I kind of would support the justice and courts departments being emrged provided non-political bias was still able to be maintained and finally ERO should be merged back into the education department. but that’s just my opinion
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
MIKMS – i would prefer to see the Ministry of Womens Affairs merged with WiINZ – as in the entire department is disbanded and everyone ends up on the dole. .
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Grant Robertson is rapidly becoming the Labour spokesman for Borrow and Spend. Labour wants us to have TWO decades of deficit. They must never be allowed to run the country for they would ruin the country.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
MIKMS: Some good points. While a lot of what Environment and DoC do are different, there are sufficient overlaps and synergies to warrant looking at that. I also wonder about Corrections. Right now we have three separate ministries: Police, Justice and Corrections, and I wonder about the overlaps and better operational considerations possible there.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
God all mighty. We are a nation of 4.4 million. Why we need more than 4 or 5 ministries to boss us around I cannot imagine.
A step in the RIGHT direction but a long way to go still.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
DPF.
Classic, lucid, DPF analysis today.
Good stuff.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Disband the myriads of quangos we don’t need.
Vote:The government should grow a pair and cross Peter Dunne, the useless political whore, and dismantle his Families Commission.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
I have to agree with the vast majority of political sentiments expressed here.
The fact is that the government’s rapid expansion over the last several or so decades has led to a crumble in performance, accountability, progress and excellency.
Some department and ministerial splits were completely unnecessary and should now be reattached. When the recession took dominance, much of Western Europe was following this particular line of reform. We can all gather that the process is cost effective and should reduce the costs in the long haul if it isn’t reversed by future administration’s.
I certainly hope that the current administration follows through with this proposal and I’m certainly hoping for huge shake ups in the families commission and other such insignificant commissions: although I’m not one to be holding my breath. This isn’t the radical Conservative administration that we were once use to.
A popular observation here is that size doesn’t necessarily mean better performance.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“A popular observation here is that size doesn’t necessarily mean better performance.”
Quite so. The nonsense that is being generated over the sacking of useless mouths in greater Auckland is a joke to behold.
Shit Auckland is a minor outpost as major cities of the world go.
I wait with baited breath for the amalgamation of the pathetic little fiefdoms that constitute the tiny burg of greater wellington.
(small case used on purpose)
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
That would just be the best title, next to Minister of Propaganda. Imagine the first class treatment you would get in all the despotic regimes around the world, when your business card declares you are the New Zealand Minister of Information.
Hey Metcalph, I pricked up my ears when I read this too. While I know it’s tongue in cheek, it’s interesting that DPF acknowledges that were he in such a position, he would still visit these “despotic regimes.”
But given his disapproving comments on RNZ staff going to Iran as part of an international conference, I assume no media personnel would accompany him. Although I am sure Mathew Hooten, super publicist, would soon disabuse him of such naivety as DPF disappeared from the local political landscape for long stretches.
And should DPF assume such a position, is this what we could look forward to, with some minor amendments?
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
And by the way, the trouble with super ministries is that not enough
goodiesbaubles are available to share around the leader’s supporters, which would mean leaders wouldn’t last very long!But Labour could always take a leaf out of the Fox News songbook and start referring to the super ministers as Czars!
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Oh there will always be plenty of baubles to give out, just because something doesn’t does not have a ministry or office, it doesn’t seem that a person can’t be minister for it and remember we can always use the ‘minister of state’ title if we want though with portfolios like food safety there are plenty of useless PC ministerial offices to be handed out and as the last government did, you can always create new ones refer regulatory reform
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
The smaller we can keep Government the better off everyone will be!
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
will be interesting to see the ripple effect as these people are made redundant. CEO’s, IT and HR are the most expensive titles around, could be some nice houses come up for sale. We need to free up some office floor space in wellington too.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Yep get rid of all those Wellington pen pushers and hand autonomy back to the regions where all the work happens. Better still, if they had any guts they would create six super regions (like Auckland) to get all the power back from Wellington.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 8:35 am
All state sector workes shoudl receive no pay rises until private sector wages have caught up. If they don’t like it they can always resign. Parasites for the most part.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 8:51 am
There are a range of Cabinet Minister positions where there is no specific department or ministry (with support provided by one or other of the existing departments). Ministers for Senior Citizens, Racing, Rugby World Cup etc spring to mind. Naturally enough they serve no purpose other than pandering to special purpose groups and giving some baubles of office to sprinkle around.
What is being proposed is of course a start but it’s hardly revolutionary. And of course unless you are prepared to tackle Health Education and Welfare government sepnding cant really be materially constrained by such moves.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 10:19 am
As Charlton Ogburn, the author of The Marauders said in 1959;
We trained hard, but it seemed every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am
But seriously, this is very overdue. The last decade the public service became the classic sheltered workshop Labour govt’s always create to hide unemployment.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 11:54 am
The ‘Ministry of Information’ – straight out of Terry Gilliam’s film Brazil. Here’s hoping that our MoI doesn’t consume 7% of GNP.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Lets be honest, re-structures are about re-distributing power and responsibilty towards those proposing the re-organisation. You can never prove your model is more efficient than someone elses.
Vote: