The future public sector
April 25th, 2011 at 9:31 am by David FarrarJohn Hartevelt in the Dom Post:
Government departments are about to start disappearing, the head of the public service says.
State Services commissioner Iain Rennie said the structure of the entire public service would be changed within five years.
Excellent. I believe the future is fewer ministries, but they will be sector-wide. In hindsight National got it wrong in the 1990s when they split ministries into smaller agencies, and Labour were on the right track with amalgamations. That way you avoid having duplicate IT systems, HR finance systems systems etc.
My future state sector would be:
- Ministry of Internal Security – Crown Law, Corrections, SIS, Justice, SFO, Police
- Ministry for Environment – Environment, EPA, Conservation, Biosecurity
- Dept of Administrative Affairs – DIA, LINZ, Building & Housing, Customs, Stats
- Ministry for Economic Development – Labour, MAF, MED, Fisheries, MORST, Transport
- DPMC – DPMC, SSC
- Education – Education, ERO, TEC
- Ministry of External Relations & Security – GCSB, Defence, MFAT, NZDF
- Treasury – Treasury
- Incomes – IRD, WINZ
- Culture – Culture & Heritage, Nat Lib, Archives, NZ on Air
- Health – Health
- Social Policy – Pacific Island Affairs, MSD, CYF, Youth Development, Community Sector, Senior Citizens, Families, Women’s Affairs, TPK
- Parliament – Parl Serv, Min Serv, Office of Clerk, PCO
This means you could have a cabinet of 12. The Speaker looks after Parliament, and one Minister per major agency. One could have associate ministers outside cabinet who get delegated some of the specialist areas within an overall portfolio.
Related posts:
- Keeping public sector costs down
- Some state sector reform
- Mallard says too many Ministers
- Vance on state sector reforms
April 25th, 2011 at 9:40 am
What you’re proposing is akin to turkeys voting for an early Xmas. Call me cynical but I don’t think MPs will be voting themselves out of power.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:41 am
You’d normally put IRD with Treasury. Elimination of income redistribution through the tax system would take away the obvious confusion of aligning IRD with welfare. LINZ should be privatised. The vast bulk of the “social policy” ministry could just not be done, we’re all human beings after all. Your “Ministry of Internal Security” is a creepy name. Otherwise it’d be a start
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Well, if you are going to slim down the PS, then you should also slim down Parliament.. say 60 MPs all told?
Otherwise you create this huge slavering beast all trying to get their hands on a handful of portfolios.. and there would be too many idle hands..
JC
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Delete Womens Affairs and Youth Affairs. Keep Senior Cits due to the Baby Boom bell curve and the new issues that will emerge within this demographic (social, economic, health and political) and keep Maori Affiars because of its unique issues (Treaty claims, tribal entities, and history. Ngai Tahu will be the South island’s greatest employer within a decade and maori aspiration and representation deserves a dedicated voice around cabinet.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:50 am
You wisely kept the Treasury separate as no other Government department give one fig for the taxpayer. This is not bad at all. The old policy of having micro Government departments with policy/provider splits (I never understood the theory of that), all having their own payroll, corporate affairs and other overheads was far too expensive to administer. And the number of Ministers can be kept down. EXCEPT in coalition Government you need to make people Ministers to lock in political stability of the Government. Civil servants do not have one damn clue about that, but then civil servants regard Ministers as a damn nuisance. They think we should have a civil servant dictatorship.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Actually David, you could simplify and unify a lot better than that. The role of central government really comes down to
1. Social and Economic equity and efficiency (economic development, social welfare, spatial development, environmemtal protection).
2. Law and Order, justice, internal security
3. Finance and monetary Policy
4. Foreign Affairs and Defence.
The major US government departments are Defence, State, Internal Affairs and Treasury.
Then you could sub contract out the administration (whilst keeping the policy) of Transport, Planning, Housing, Environment, Economic Development, Social Policy and even Community Development and safety to regional government (who do a lot of this anyway- in duplicate at present).
Wallah- there you have it. A very much streamlined and more focused Wellington administration.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Can I be the minister for Woman’s internal affairs ?
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Drop “Families” and “Pacific Island Affairs.” If latter is legit, then we need “Asian Affairs.” These become a nonsense. Why does PIA need a separate dedicated ministry. External Relations covers it, as does Social Policy or are we continuing public policy based on race (“Maori” being a unique case pegged to historicity).
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:56 am
The only sensible way to go is to dump the lot and put a married couple in to run the outfit.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:57 am
REDUCTION is good. I never felt the old 1990s “Razor Gang” went far enough. Would add higher value to under secretaries and ministers outside cabinet who have to perform (and be loyal) to work their way eventually into Cabinet which should be for seasoned hard workers.
Under Muldoon Bill Birch WAS the Cabinet.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Tinman: gay or straight married couple?
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:08 am
>That way you avoid having duplicate IT systems, HR finance systems systems etc.
The other way to avoid duplicating these services would be to share them across agencies. You don’t have to merge two agencies to have them share a payroll system or an e-mail system.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Will there be fewer private consultants and contractors employed by these ‘fewer’ Government Departments?
Or more?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
April 25th, 2011 at 10:24 am
This means you could have a cabinet of 12.
ie, this means you could drastically reduce your ability to reward your supporters with lucrative sinecures (Minister of Racing, anyone?); likewise, your ability to form a caucus-overruling power base via cabinet collective responsibility. If any PM does it in my lifetime, I’ll be astonished.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:29 am
The name of number 9 is incorrect. It should be called the Ministry of Tax & Spend.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:32 am
I’d put DPMC at #13, for triskaidekaphobic reasons. If anyone would have the power to betray this, it would be the PM- any PM.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:34 am
iMP (142) Says:
April 25th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Tinman: gay or straight married couple?
We’re not talking Labour/Green here.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Ministry of Internal Security sounds a little too totalitarian.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Still too many David, how about we just fire every second so called public servant outside of the military teeth arms, police, teachers and doctors and nurses etc
Oh, and while we are at it fire two out of every three local body employees, now those bastards believe they are owed a job for fucking life regardless of how difficult ratepayers are finding it.
Vote:Just ring a local body and ask how many have been laid off or fired in the last ten years.
April 25th, 2011 at 10:58 am
SR,
Given the Internet Copyright Amendment (where you have to prove your innocence), the CERA Bill (where CERA can demand ANY information from anybody), the new police search powers and the Maori Gang Patch Bill for Wanganui, it actually sounds fairly appropriate.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:59 am
There isn’t much savings in systems nowadays as for a start everyone all already has their own systems and modern IT systems are pretty efficient. There are savings in getting rid of duplicate CEOs, however, huge departments can get unweildy so I am not convinced in DPF’s suggestions.
Downsizing existing departments and getting rid of some altogether would be more productive and less disruptive.
Wasn’t Sir Humphrey in charge of the Department of Administrative Affairs?
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Sounds like there’d be some great money to be made with the amalgamation for IT services, and management consultants. And some good dosh for those taking redundancy and getting a job back in essentially the same position.
The thing is, it wouldn’t make any difference. The amalgamated departments would split into the old smaller divisions after one step – but it would give another manager a high paying job to manage the lower tiers.
E.g
Incomes – IRD, WINZ
Now, whether you call it “Incomes” which does both taxes and doles, or “IRD” doing taxes and “WINZ” doing doles, you’ve still got the same amount of work to do! This restructuring shit is a waste of money wherever it happens!
It’s the same “look how I’m changing things” that governments do every so often, without actually changing a thing. Great going “State Services Commissioner”.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:09 am
All Government departments are toomstones to some political problem, it is not that easy to get rid of them. In reality the work of Government gets down to about 3-4 Ministers who must include the PM and the Minister of Finance. The other Ministers are simply drawing salaries either waiting their turn for greatness to be thrust upon them or are seeing out their time and swanning about in nice cars and going on overseas trips and staying quiet.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:20 am
And what of Science and research??? S’pose you could subsume them under the environment….. but probably not a great idea to shove them with a ministry that spends so much time looking at legislation.
Vote:There’s a hell of a lot of fundamental and applied research and development that needs to be undertaken in NZ (across many disciplines).
I’m not in favour of leaving this type of work wholly in the hands of the universities… as their staff have distractions…. like teaching and taking long holidays.
April 25th, 2011 at 11:24 am
If you want to do amalgamations try the Irish model, there the executive is limited to 15 members:
Taoiseach (PM)
Tánaiste (Deputy PM) and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Minister for Agriculture, Marine and Food
Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs
Minister for Children
Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Minister for Education and Skills
Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
Minister for Finance
Minister for Health
Minister for Justice and Equality
Minister for Defence (Held by justice minister)
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform
Minister for Social Protection
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport
THe problem is all the quangos that are built up over time and need to be cut them back as well.
Anyway it is not a bad idea that NZ is cutting back on departments.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:34 am
There won’t be any savings unless they simplify functions and process. All the merger with Police/Traffic did was tack one onto the other, increase the salaries of the Commissioner and his aides,increase paperwork and focus on traffic, especially speed, at the expense of crime fighting allowing the drug culture to flourish.
They would be serious if they dispensed with N0. 10 Culture etc and 12 Entitlements etc altogether.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:34 am
I think there’s some merit in DPF’s proposals.
Look at Queensland (http://www.qld.gov.au/government/departments/) – it has only 13 departments.
Department of Communities
Department of Community Safety
Department of Education and Training
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
Department of Environment and Resource Management
Department of Justice and Attorney General
Department of Local Government and Planning
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Department of Public Works
Department of Transport and Main Roads
Queensland Health
Queensland Police Service
Queensland Treasury
NSW has recently gone through a big restructuring as well and gone to 12 departments. I’d add Foreign Affairs and Defence as two separate ministries (within GCSB and SIS within DPMC) and keep police and justice separate, but this model could work in NZ.
DPF – you don’t need a separate Culture ministry – easy enough to cover that in a ‘Communities” or ‘Interior” type agency.
Of course, this doesn’t cover Crown entities and SOEs. For example, would you reincorporate NZTA (a Crown entity) into the Ministry of Transport or keep it separate as an independent road-building organisation? Where would the SOEs sit in this structure (under Treasury would appear to be the logical place)
The biggest risk is the potential to muddy accountabilities within each super-agency. For example, it’d probably be almost impossible for one CE to be pracitcally knowledgeable about every issue that is happening in an agency that covers forestry, agriculture, transport and commerce, except at such a high managerial level as to be no better than a minister at having a full oversight. Imagine joining Federated Farmers, the AA and Chambers of Commerce into one organisation and expecting one person to lead it properly.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:47 am
There isn’t much savings in systems nowadays as for a start everyone all already has their own systems and modern IT systems are pretty efficient. There are savings in getting rid of duplicate CEOs, however, huge departments can get unweildy so I am not convinced in DPF’s suggestions.
That’s not really correct. There are massive savings in payroll, procurement, accounts receivable, accounts payable and recruitment that can be made through centralising.
Almost all public servants are paid the same fortnightly salary: i.e. they are not paid hourly and don’t have allowances that vary depending on what shifts/hours they work, so for people like that, payroll is a pretty simple thing. Now a large central payroll admin function which deals with every single govt dept, could easily take over all of those currently duplicated functions and you could shrink the resource requirements by 2/3′s.
With things like health where workers are paid hourly, you have the situation created by the free-market fanatics, whereby each individual DHB has their own largely similar but slightly different award agreements, which is utterly mental. Imagine the overhead saved were all of those to be amalgamated into a single agreement because don’t forget, all of those agreements have to be configured into the payroll engine every 3-4 years.
Reducing complexity is a proven way to implement step-change in an organisation and it’s not just in product lines where you can make those savings.
Taking procurement, how come the govt is unable to use its massive buying power in the market, cause every single dept has their own arrangements with say their stationery supplier? Why not have a whole-of-govt approach here as well. Imagine the savings just in say, paper?
The list goes on and on and on.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Actually NZ really should have only one goal and that is to make Kiwi’s healthy, wealthy and wise.
So obviously lacking from that list is any responsibility for business growth and exports.
That is the only thing that will achieve all they other nice to do stuff that are contained in all the other Ministries.
No. 1 Ministry after PM should be Ministry of Wealth Creation, to include all Govt. business related functions. e.g. overseas trade, Reserve Bank, IRD, and everything under the economic Development banner.
Then we could get a considered plan and forward momentum in our land.
Now some might say that’s Winston’s policy. Well yes it is although I am not a Winston believer generally but this is exactly what we need to do to raise our standard of living and be wealthy and be able to do all the nice things for ourselves that we would all like.
Its just not hard, just requires removing power bases and establishing better longterm and short term goals.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
It would be ridiculous to combine defence with MFAT.
Vote:Unless your MERST was always headed by the CDF, you’d have a CDF subordinate to an unelected official. Sorry, but no.
April 25th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
In pre-Rogernomics days, there were various ‘centralisations’ in the Public Service but they got a bad name because of bureaucracy and inefficiencies. For example there were central payroll services for ‘core’ public servants (CPS/PIPS) and teachers, and services such as procurement and accommodation were handled by GSB and GOAB respectively. Problems arose when for example State Services Commission approval was needed to purchase a $20 calculator (this limitation was lifted when woken up to) and accommodation was about the cheapest rents regardless of potential efficincies through large floor plates, etc. It was cynically suggested at the time that the GOAB always ensured at least to departments occupied any building so a single occupancy department did not control the whole building. ‘Trading’ departments (forerunners of tyhe SOE’s) were allowed to arrange own accommodation but had to work within most other strictures.
Rogernomics swept this away and some CEO’s tended to abuse their new found freedom (eg Christine Rankin of WINZ).
It was a pity that for example the ‘PIPS’ payroll service which worked tolerably well was not for example placed with IRD and extended to hospitals, etc and possibly small businesses etc (although lack of ‘on line’ communications back then would have been problematic for hospitals etc).
So the pendulum now seems to be swinging back the other way.
I would probably give Justice Ministry’s Collections Unit to IRD. They are the experts at squeezing blood out of a stone.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
peter you raise good points however you also seem to acknowledge technology has changed the landscape and from my perspective this, provided its used properly, can avoid those problems. For example you can now deploy online approval mechanisms for procurement and this should solve the permissions problem.
As someone else said above the key to all of this is focusing upon the processes which means, in part, reduction of all the individual variations into one or several core processes such as for example the approval process for accounts payable. This takes time because best of breed means understanding which of the separate depts has which aspects of which process working the best and that takes measurement of them. It’s worth doing in the end but it means time which is something politicians don’t want to grant because they want an achievement they can tick off to the electorate and if that means something is done half-arsed they don’t give a fuck cause that issue is left to their successors and as long as they get the glory and the credit from their electorate, they don’t care that the precious and irreplaceable implementation funds they allocated was significantly mis-spent due only to their venal glory seeking. This happens on both sides BTW.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four only had four Ministries of Oceania:
Ministry of Peace
Vote:Ministry of Plenty
Ministry of Truth
Ministry of Love
April 25th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
You only need 8 plus a PM and deputy PM:
Firstly, nearly everything you have in number 12 are totally unnecessary (except possibly CYF) so dump them.
Then have the following:
PM: DPMC, SSC, SIS
Deputy PM: Parliament, Min Serv, PCO, Office of Clerk etc
Health
Education
Justice: Justice, Courts, Corrections, CYF etc
National Security: Police, Civil Defence, NZDF, Defence etc
Economic Development: MED, Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Transport, Tourism etc
Finance: Treasury, Revenue etc
External Affairs: MFAT etc
Internal Affairs: DIA, Welfare, Customs, Housing, Stats, Nat Lib, Archives, Consumer Affairs and anything else
Certainly don’t need Pacific Island Affairs, MSD, Youth Development, Community Sector, Senior Citizens, Families, Women’s Affairs, TPK, Culture and Heritage.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
reid – I fully agree.
With respect to Parliamentary Services, DPMC and Ministerial Services, etc, I wonder why DPF lumped them as he has. Parliamentary Services and Office of the Clerk IMO need to be kept separate for constitutional reasons, but can share back office services with others as long as the Opposition is confident that integrity is maintained eg MPs’ computers not being monitored by someone beholden to executive government. There has been similar rumblings in Justice that judicial support should be provided independently of executive government. It would also seem that DPMC should oversee Ministerial Services as to policy etc even if Dept of Administrative affairs provides day to day services eg cars, drivers, maintenance etc.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Dept of Administative Affairs? Have you got Rt Hon Jim Hacker lined up for that one!
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Grant Robertson on Redablurt not happy about this so I offered this up as a discussion point .. no doubt to be shot down .
jabba says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 25, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Vote:my work place has a saying “continuous improvement”. Grant, are you saying that this philosophy shouldn’t apply to our Public Services?
Mind you, Treasury have a history of mistakes. Remember before the 2005 election, Cullen said, after his budget, that there was no money left?. National then put up a policy with a reduced interest rate on student loans. Within days, Cullen announced that Treasury had made a mistake in its forecast and the Govt had more money available and offered interest FREE loans?
April 25th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Cops,defence and law courts… nothing else.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Haven’t you forgotten that the civil service is there to serve the government’s needs? These cuts you are talking about are small beer.
The big issue is getting government deciding NOT to do things. Every time a minister gets a hair brained idea, or overreacts to some public issue and demands a review civil servants rush around and do things. And to do things they need policy analysts, buildings, computers, admin assistants, managers, cars etc.
What’s needed most is discipline in Cabinet.
But it’s unlikely, because every time John Key has been asked about cuts at the top he has refused to make reductions in the number of ministers, the number of BMWs or advisers and consultants in the Beehive. His reaction is ‘they are good value’ or ‘such cuts won’t make a real difference in costs’. So if change doesn’t start at the top, what hope is there for it to be real anywhere else?
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Wow James, – so, no embassies to help New Zealanders overseas, no Treasury or Reserve Bank, no land titles or survey system system to define property boundaries, no border control or customs, no security intelligence service or inland revenue service.
Vote:April 25th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Customs is a revenue generator not a cost centre. Should go with IRD.
Vote: