The next Mega-Ministry is coming and it is going to disappoint

Notwithstanding the histrionics from the Greens and other hard-left activists, the Ministry for the Environment isn't being shut-down, it's being merged with two other Ministries and part of a Department to create the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). 

I opposed this when it was floated nearly a year ago, and I still oppose it.  Not because of the claims that it will risk MfE's work programme (if only!), but because bigger bureaucracies are NOT more cost efficient, and they are certainly not more dynamic, nor do they result in integrated and co-ordinated thinking.

I've worked in both large and small government agencies, but it's not just that experience that informs my opinion, it's the experience seen elsewhere. The views on savings are largely from the perspective of accountants, who typically measure "X-efficiency" which is about minimising wasted resources. In the context of government it is really around the number of managers vs. output, which given the outputs are highly subjective, is hard to assess without a close understanding of the detail of those outputs. It's not goods sold or customers satisfied.  It might consider productive efficiency based on numbers of people relative to outputs, although the "productivity" of policy agencies ought to reflect the quality of output, which I'd be astonished if the Public Service Commission could identify at more than a rudimentary level. 

What definitely isn't measured is dynamic efficiency (how responsive organisations are to innovations and technology), nor do they measure allocative efficiency (allocating resources to meet most specifically what is desired - in this case by Ministers).  

From experience, large Ministries can be awfully inefficient and slow to be responsive. For example, I half wonder if I still have a live "on demand" employment contract with MBIE, even though I left its predecessor permanently 26 years ago, although I did work casually for it for a subsequent 2 years. I never received any communications terminating it.  However I digress. 

One of my favourite administrative failures of MBIE's predecessor - MED - was how it spent three years developing an all of Ministry centralised Document Management System, which was designed primarily for "security". There were full time staff dedicated to this project, who were bewildered when one senior advisor pointed out that every single document created in this system was copied onto individual PC hard drives, which were accessible to anyone who logged onto the PCs. It took another year for the system to be implemented, by which time it was already obsolete.  

As much as there are efforts to try to bring together people in a single Ministry to be co-ordinated across sectors, the record of doing so successfully, without bringing other activities to a snail's pace is not particularly inspiring. By and large, MED and its predecessor the Ministry of Commerce, largely operated in silos.  The idea there was some commonality between how energy, telecommunications, land planning (RMA) and industrial/trade policy was fanciful. Electricity was heavily regulated and resulted in structural separation, telecommunications was very lightly regulated, land use planning was largely about tinkering with the RMA (and monitoring the impacts of its implementation), industrial/trade policy focused on tariff removal and supporting MFAT on trade negotiations.  Throughout the five years I had there, the proportion of effort of the Secretary/Chief Executive in telecommunications, broadcasting, postal and IT policy as a share of activity was <5%.  In other words, mega-Ministries struggle to get their senior management across everything they do.  Small ones don't have that problem.  Of course that can be an advantage for divisions/directorates/units led by managers who want to get on with their jobs without micro-management at a more senior level, but it is hardly amenable to accountability.  Of course what it does mean is that there are multiple Ministers for the Ministry to report to, over the head of the Secretary/Chief Executive (otherwise the Secretary would spent all of her/his time at every Minister's office). 

What mega-Ministries DO implement is a rather significant in-house administrative function, which inevitably justifies more staff to perform functions across IT, HR, finance and information management. 

I've pointed out that MBIE and DIA, both large Ministries have not displayed much capability in delivering innovative reforms over recent years. MfE of course delivered an abject disaster with Labour's proposed RMA replacement with two pieces of legislation imposing greater costs on property owners and more complication through centralisation of power.  This is primarily because MfE's culture is antithetical to economic growth, development and private property rights (you can still see in the new Planning Bill which is far more diluted and modest than what is needed to address the sclerosis in development). This was so apparent when in 2023, Vicky Robertson departed as MfE Chief Executive and stated:

In her presentation she pointed to the programmes that will have a profound and lasting positive impact on our environment.

She spoke about how reforming the resource management system has been the Ministry’s key priority and remains our single biggest deliverable for a system that is future-focused, adaptable, and encourages decisions that are good for our long-term wellbeing.

I'm not sure whose wellbeing she meant, certainly not taxpayers...

“People still say what they love about the Ministry is how people care about each other. They still say that now, as they did when I started. It’s pretty incredible how we’ve gone from 320 people to 1200 and held onto our culture. I’m proud we’ve been able to do that,” she says" 

Being proud of more than trebling staff numbers says all you need to know about bureaucratic culture.  Now that is being merged with the local government arm of DIA (which spent decades responsible for the statis of water policy), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (which was established in 2018 and presided over the country's most rapid increase in housing prices) and Transport (which itself has seen a more than doubling of staff numbers over 25 years). 

Another example. 

In 2004, Transfund New Zealand was merged with the Land Transport Safety Authority to become Land Transport New Zealand.  That entity was merged with Transit New Zealand in 2008 to form the NZ Transport Agency. The end result has been to create a bureaucratic monster.  In 2004, the three separate agencices had a combined total of around 700 staff.  In the 2023/24 financial year, NZTA had 2,769 permanent employees.

In 2007 announcing the merger, then Transport Minister Annette King said:

“Combining the functions of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand will create one organisation accountable to one board, ensuring improved focus on value for money for land transport activities and an appropriate balance of land transport activities".

Value for money?

In Australia, a mega-Department I've previously done work for had a total of six project leads for a single project I was involved in as a contractor, over five years.  Each time the new lead had to be brought up to speed and learn again.  The reason why was because the mega-Department kept poaching anyone talented to work on other projects in other areas.  One comment I heard from a different agency was "this is the Department you send projects to so they die". That's a bit unfair, but isn't entirely untrue. Quite simply there are five layers of management on top of each project or activity, so it is easy for them to get lost.

So I'm not optimistic. I'm not sure a single entity co-ordinates better than separate entities, because the bigger the organisation the more sluggish it is to work as an integrated whole. Moreover, so much of what these agencies do is not across other portfolios. I doubt aviation policy has ever paid much regard to housing policy, local government or the environment, but I am sure there are people in a couple of those who would keen to get involved - which would slow it down.  A mega-Ministry has great potential for sclerosis.

I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen multiple mega-agencies in several countries over 30 years.  I'd love to see the example that, by an objective external measure, has delivered serious innovative reforms that have released productivity, growth and dare I say "wellbeing" for taxpayers and the public.

Where to from here for those of us who believe in freedom?

ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk. The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election.  I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.

To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station. Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them.  Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.

The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues. Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy. 

I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking. So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.

The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting.  It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference.   It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next.  It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.

The agenda should be as follows:

- Introductions ;

- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;

o Principles and values; 

o Political goals 

- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));

- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);

- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;

- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;

- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);

- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and

- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals). 

This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other.  Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).

The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen. 

In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other.  It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes.  Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere. 

It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to. 

The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014. 

We must do the same, but better.

Who’s with me?

P.S.  The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished.  LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go.  He'll never win Epsom under that banner.   I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks.   It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.

A republic, any republic

Asking if you want a republic, particularly when dreamt up by former communist Green MP Keith Locke, is a bit like asking if you want something to eat, and not knowing if you'll get a gourmet meal, fast food, some expired food from a supermarket bin.

A republic in and of itself it not necessarily a good thing. Not PC akins it to accepting a kidney transplant from a bureaucrat, but I think it is more like a trojan horse. It looks like something good, but you don't know what's inside, or why you got it. The motivations of some advocating a republic should be cause for worry.

You see a republic can range from being a constitutionally limited one, that is meant to constrain the role of the state, like the United States, or it may be a corrupt dictatorship, like the Republic of Tajikistan. I don't expect Keith Locke wants a "People's Republic" although he has been cheerleader for this in the past, but I also don't expect he wants to emulate the United States.

So whilst a debate on this is good, indeed very good, be wary of those who push a republic for the sake of a republic. If a republic appears in the coming years, it is a once in a lifetime chance to fundamentally change the constitutional structure of New Zealand and ringfence the role of the state - and equally to constitutionally demand an expansion or entrenchment of it.

Have a guess to what extent Keith Locke wants to constrain the role of the state, and to what extent he wants to expand and entrench it.

Then ask yourself if you really think that those who will advance a republic will predominantly share that view, or will they advance a republic should tightly define the state as an entity to protect individual rights and freedoms.

I doubt it is the latter, and as a result, whilst I would advocate for the latter, I'd prefer the status quo to any vision of a republic Keith Locke has.

When is Cindy Kiro going to be fired?

This woman sought to nationalise children under Labour, she continues to collectivise everyone, blaming everyone for child abuse (hat tip: NZ Conservative).

She is an authoritarian, she wants the state to monitor all children, and she engages in the philosophy of collective blame and collective responsibility.

The Commissioner for Children has been abundantly useless in its task, children are NOT safer than they were when the office was set up. It should be abolished, so parents can get a few more cents back in tax cuts to spend on their kids. Cindy Kiro will undoubtedly become an academic and continue to live suckling off the state tit, but her doggerel can be treated for what it is - the ravings of a Neo-Marxist academic.

Abused children suffer because of their parents, guardians and families that abuse them - they are predominantly on welfare, disproportionately Maori and that is not the fault of society - society is forced to pay these people to breed. It is time to focus on the offenders, not some generic nonsensical use of "we".