Opinion: Government departments, ministerial roles a tangled forest

In 1924, New Zealand had 11 ministers and 34 portfolios. In 2024, these numbers tripled and doubled respectively. Photo / Mark Mitchell

OPINION

Cast your mind back to the tense post-election negotiations of last year. Despite the prolonged talks, frequent clashes in the media and ominous noises from Winston, we all knew how it would end: a three-way coalition between National, Act, and New Zealand First.

So what, exactly, was there to negotiate?

Policy positions were undoubtedly crucial, but the allocation of ministerial roles was equally significant. In other words, it was not just about what the Government would do, but who would be in charge.

Given this, it is no shock the negotiations took so long. The coalition partners had to divvy up no less than 78 ministerial positions (portfolios) between 28 ministers, with 41 government departments reporting to them.

If those numbers strike you as excessive, that is because they are. Furthermore, the web of overlapping responsibilities begins to resemble a tangled forest in which the best intentions and most well-constructed policy might become hopelessly lost.

Consider an alternative model like Norway (another parliamentary democracy with a similar population to New Zealand), which manages just fine with only 20 ministers, 20 portfolios and 16 ministries.

In my new paper for the New Zealand Initiative (Cabinet Congestion: The Growth of a Ministerial Maze), I make the case that our wildly convoluted system likely causes major problems for government, making it inefficient and prone to poor policy implementation.

Departments frequently overlap on policy responsibilities, some with massive purviews (eg MBIE), while others are very focussed (eg Racing). Some departments are responsible to a single minister (eg Education), while others are responsible to several (eg Internal Affairs).

All ministers hold multiple, often unrelated, portfolios (the average National Cabinet minister holds 3.4). For instance, Casey Costello holds the Customs and Seniors portfolios, and associate portfolios for Health, Immigration and Police.

Most ministers will find at least one portfolio only provides partial responsibility over a department. Moreover, they will share that responsibility with at least one colleague.

Consider the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, one of the 16 ministers in charge of MBIE whose work overlaps closely with Immigration and Workplace Relations. Getting things done requires an awful lot of coordination.

Combined, these departments, ministers, and portfolios all make up our executive – the “in-charge” branch of government. As these ministers are also the leading members of Parliament, this body functionally controls both New Zealand’s law-making and policy creation. It dictates the direction of state power, influencing everything from healthcare to roads, education to foreign policy.

Might this overgrown forest benefit from a talented political arborist to prune it back into shape?

No two countries are the same and perhaps New Zealand’s system is sensible for our context. In our eagerness to pick up the axe and get to lopping, we might do more harm than good. In the words of GK Chesterton concerning the need to moderate the reformist impulse: “When you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

So why is our executive so convoluted?

One likely answer is political expedience.

Imagine you are a would-be prime minister and need to form a government. Around you at the table sit the various groups and factions both within and (post MMP) outside your own party. You need to unite to form a government. You need to reward those around you while providing those across from you the bare minimum they will accept.

What do you do? Well, if you were one of New Zealand’s various prime ministers over the past 100 years (and especially after MMP) you got out your knife and cut that pie into ever thinner wafers, handing it to ever more people.

In 1924, New Zealand had 11 ministers and 34 portfolios. In 2024, these numbers tripled and doubled respectively. The low cost of creating a new portfolio or appointing an additional minister means this process has been neither clean nor linear.

You would be right to think this complexity is a serious issue for New Zealand. Having the most important branch of government tying itself in knots causes problems.

Ministers are spread too thin and are ill-equipped to undertake serious reform. The sheer number of ministers and departments poses coordination, resource management and accountability problems. Important portfolios such as Environment end up on the executive’s periphery.

These issues and more are detailed in Cabinet Congestion. The paper enjoins us to look at this problem that currently sits in front of our noses – largely unnoticed – and to consider its implications.

Steps must be taken to simplify New Zealand’s executive. I believe the reasons for this complexity are clear and bad enough that Chesterton would be satisfied. We must approach this twisted forest, axe in hand, and engage in some serious pruning.

Max Salmon is a research fellow at the New Zealand Initiative and author of the research note Cabinet Congestion: The Growth of a Ministerial Maze.