From an uncharitable vantage point, the burgeoning "commissions", "task forces" and "working groups" established by this administration could be seen as vehicles through which to smuggle into public policy a range of untried or potentially unpopular notions.
For starters, these bodies exist outside the formal structures of the public service.
They are not bound by the constraining inconvenience of political neutrality nor necessarily subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
It could be argued that precisely by operating outside the conventions and cultures of, for example, the government ministries - whose working groups and pointy-heads might formerly have been charged with such tasks - fresh and innovative thinking might emerge.
There is some force in this argument, but it would be more persuasive were the make-up of this cluster of opinion and policy formers seen to be politically disinterested.
Sadly, this does not appear to be the case, a state of affairs that becomes all the more critical within a constitutional environment in which the ministers of the executive seem routinely inclined to use "urgency" to push law through the legislature without due consideration by the select committee process.
And in the more generalised context of cuts to the public service.
Take just three recent examples: the 2025 Taskforce which has as its primary goal catching up with the Australian economy by 2025; the Welfare Working Group set up to investigate the vast impost of welfarism on the economy; and the Productivity Commission, which will kick off its remit by looking at housing affordability and international freight services.
Each addresses real problems.
The goal of closing the gap between our own economy and that of Australia is laudable.
We would all like that.
We would all earn more and not have to fly regularly across the Tasman to catch up with our kids.
But how realistic is it when its prime mover is arch conservative Dr Don Brash?
As much as he is a widely respected economist, particularly for his role and service as governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Brash is too uncompromising in his adherence to neo-liberal economic views to gain general traction.
The task force's first set of recommendations was too strong even for the Government to stomach and it has to be asked if the task force continues for fulfil any useful purpose.
The Welfare Working Group takes on a huge area of contention.
Its proposals could herald the most radical changes in welfare policies seen in many decades.
Whatever the quality of the resultant advice, it must be galling for analysts in the ministries - professionals with years of experience and specialist expertise - to see policy direction constructed by luminaries, including a former president of Act New Zealand, who may be exceedingly able but whose profile is previously notable for entries on public relations and political lobbying.
Last week, the Productivity Commission's first areas of research were identified as housing affordability and international freight services.
Again, areas well worthy of investigation, but what confidence should the public place in its finding when one of its three commissioners is Graham Scott, former Treasury secretary and Act party candidate.
A noted economist, Dr Scott is however roundly associated with the era of Rogernomics - and his appointment encourages the suspicion the Government already has a good idea of the solutions it might wish the commission to arrive at.
What housing affordability has to do with productivity is a different question, one not much helped by a recent head-hurting article in the National Business Review.
Productivity growth, it said, indicates an ability "to produce more output from available input over time".
My rapidly glazing eyes lit up, however, when the same article singled out "cultural and recreational services" as one of the few growth industries of the 2006-09 downturn.
I must assume that includes theatre, because the other night I went to a play at the Fortune Theatre - featuring the hard-working and highly productive playwright and actor Johnny Brugh - and saw the evidence for myself.
The play, The Second Test, is an entrancing re-enactment of one of the great, dramatic moments in New Zealand sporting history: a story that intertwines fast bowler Bob Blair, the Tangiwai disaster, and a glorious rearguard action during the second test against South Africa in Johannesburg that began on Christmas eve in 1953.
The versatile Mr Brugh plays a dozen or so characters to create an affecting and moving drama.
One player, 12 voices.
One input, 12 outputs.
Who would have thought "productivity" could be so entertaining.
Catch it while you can.
Simon Cunliffe is deputy editor (news) at the Otago Daily Times.
