The centrepiece of its election year rally, held in Auckland over the weekend, was an announcement that if elected it intended to slash the number of government agencies and departments and, by extension, the number of Cabinet ministers.
Some of Act’s suggestions make sense, such as consolidating the likes of revenue and customs into their ultimate end point, the finance ministry. So does the defence and security portfolios being the province of one minister, and likewise the law and justice portfolios.
On the flip side, some of Act’s touted new executive, such as the Minister of Home Affairs or the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Regional Development, would be in charge of what used to be many departments and would run the risk of being overwhelmed and overworked.
There is also something to be said for career development. The high-performing ministers of the future have to start somewhere and many MPs, including members of Seymour’s own caucus, have benefitted from the training the so-called minor portfolios present.
Although it might run counter to Seymour’s streamlining ambitions, some associate or undersecretary roles would be worthy of consideration.
Also, it cannot be overlooked that the Ministry of Regulation, an Act construct which many would argue should also be in the surplus to requirements category, has survived intact.
The many departments which Act would like to axe did not emerge out of thin air; they were created because a need was seen by someone for them, and their existence maintained because someone regarded that need as being ongoing.
A review of the executive structure of New Zealand’s government would be no bad thing, but the possibility does exist that important functions and workstreams could be expunged as a result and important work or minority voices be sidelined in the name of efficiency and cost saving.
Politicians like to say that they govern for everyone, and some of the likely doomed ministries exist to give sectors and communities a chance to be heard at the highest echelon. That is not something to be casually set aside.
More controversial is Act’s proposal that ministers be allowed to appoint their departmental chief executives for a fixed term. Although it envisages ‘‘clear protections’’ for officials, this runs the risk of such appointments being made on the basis of politics rather than ability and could come at the loss of ministers receiving non-partisan and neutral advice.
That concern is only heightened by Act’s view that ministers should be able to remove chief executives for specified reasons ‘‘such as non-performance or policy misalignment’’.
Although recent events at MBIE have called into question the performance of the public service, what is hopefully an isolated exception should not undermine the principle of a neutral and non political civil service sector.
The weekend conference also saw Act change its deputy leader. To the surprise of no one, Nicole McKee was elected to replace the retiring Brooke Van Velden.
Ms McKee is best known for her pre-parliamentary role as a fire arms advocate and she did not shy away from that in her acceptance speech, saying that her perception that gun owners were being treated unfairly was why she had entered politics.
However, she argued — and quiet reasonably so, that her work in the courts portfolio meant that she had transcended being regarded simply as ‘‘the gun lady’’.
Also, notably, McKee took aim at Te Pāti Māori and what she termed the politicisation of whakapapa. In that context she could have noted, but did not, that Act’s leader is, like herself, a descendant of Ngāpuhi.
While many would wish that race not be a political issue in the forthcoming, or any other election, such pointed observations suggest that Maori issues in general and the Treaty of Waitangi specifically, will again be hotly debated in the months ahead.
