Reform activity but results uncertain

AS public service grandee Sir Humphrey Appleby observed in an episode of the insightful British satire Yes Minister, politicians ‘‘need activity’’. ‘‘It’s their substitute for achievement.’’ If activity were indeed a suitable indicator of results, New Zealanders could rest easy that the state sector reforms announced by Prime Minister John Key yesterday will, as he claims, usher in a new era of efficiency, innovation and service delivery. Unfortunately, it is not.

There is merit in the intention of the changes laid out by Mr Key. Merging the economic development and science and innovation ministries and the labour and building and housing departments into a single ministry, for example, is intended to provide a one-stop shop for businesses seeking government support and advice. It is also aimed at delivering more focused and better co-ordinated input from the public service on business policies.

But the public could be forgiven for being sceptical. Is it really not possible for a whole-of-government approach to business, run from one ministry or department in coordination with others, without such a massive upheaval? Will the change truly result in more efficient and costeffective service delivery, or will it simply see staff and managers in the four affected ministries and departments doing what they do now, but with a different logo on the letterhead? How will its success or failure be measured?

The Science and Innovation Ministry itself has existed for just over a year, following the merger of two agencies last February. New Zealanders have seen enough state sector restructuring and mergers in decades past to be doubtful about the value of further change.

So, too, the 10 targets in areas ranging from education and child health to reducing long-term benefit dependency look good on paper, but rarely in the past has anyone been held to account when such targets have not been met.

This time around, Mr Key has appointed specific ministers to lead each area, and is promising public service chief executives will be made accountable for ‘‘achieving something, not just managing a department or agency’’. That suggests he is serious about getting results, but there is no detail on how that accountability will be policed. There needs to be for the targets to have true value.

For example, Education Minister Hekia Parata has set a target for 85 per cent of 18-year-olds to havencealevel two or its equivalent within five years. There will be a general election before then, Ms Parata will almost certainly have moved on to another portfolio by 2016 and it is highly likely the Education Ministry will have a new chief executive. Will the new incumbent in either role be held to account if the target is missed, or will the government revert to the age-old excuse of circumstances having changed in the intervening years? After all, nobody has been held to account for Mrkey’s failure to deliver on his 2008 election promise to close the gap with Australia.

There is one question the public will ponder the most. With four ministries and departments merging into one on July 1, will there be three less ministers sitting around Mr Key’s Cabinet table the next day?