Editorial: Fixing the public service without building another Death Star

Friday, 3 July 2026

EDITORIAL: On Sunday, ACT held its first campaign rally, unveiling a reheated plan for restructuring the public service. At its heart is the insight that there are simply too many ministers, agencies and blurred lines of accountability. Then on Wednesday, the newly merged Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) opened its doors.

Currently there are 78 ministerial portfolios, 28 ministers and 43 departments. All those numbers are much too high. To streamline this, ACT proposes radically reducing the number of ministers from 28 to 18 and cutting departments from 43 to 19. Each department would report to a single minister, with the power to appoint their preferred chief executive, giving ministers clearer authority over the agencies responsible for delivering their agenda.

On paper, it all sounds sensible. The growth in ministries and agencies reporting to multiple ministers has created a scribbly page of complexity where clarity is needed. It can feel like ministries and ministers can endlessly offload responsibility for various matters to various other teams or ministers. Likewise, some prime ministers and opposition leaders, concerned about a certain political problem or opportunity, have chosen to announce yet another portfolio rather than engage with the difficult and serious policy issues that lie behind it.

ACT is not the first to conclude reform is needed. In 2024, The New Zealand Initiative’s Cabinet Congestion: The Growth of a Ministerial Maze illustrated just how tangled ministerial responsibilities have become.

Less than two months ago, the Minister for the Public Service, Paul Goldsmith, and the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, announced plans to merge government departments as part of a savings drive, although the details have been left to officials. One of Mr Goldsmith’s recent predecessors, Chris Hipkins, was also planning a significant simplification before Covid-19 intervened. The upshot is that there is broad agreement across the political spectrum that something has to change. The harder question is what.

Simplifying ministerial responsibilities and reporting lines inevitably means mergers. Unless governments are willing to abolish functions altogether – and few are – the result is larger departments responsible for more diverse activities. But is that really an improvement?

The creation of the mega-ministry, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – MBIE, or the “Death Star” in Wellington parlance – has hardly been an unqualified success. Its responsibilities stretch from labour market regulation and building standards to immigration, energy, tourism and science funding. It currently reports to an extraordinary 19 ministers and one under-secretary – roughly two-thirds of the Government’s executive. In another context, that might be a line from Franz Kafka or the punchline to a joke that is not especially funny.

That leaves the fundamental question at the heart of any public service reform: how do you simplify without creating another monster? If anything, MBIE itself has become a compelling argument for being broken apart.

The Government has already begun experimenting with a different approach through the creation of the new MCERT. The logic is straightforward: the agencies brought together all revolve around land use and the planning system. In theory, that should allow decisions on issues such as new transport corridors to be considered alongside urban development, environmental planning and regional growth within one organisation. At face value, that appears a more coherent way to organise government. The Post hopes it succeeds, but, as ever, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The structure of the public service clearly needs attention. It is neither as accountable to New Zealanders nor as effective an instrument of elected governments as it should be. That is well understood by senior public servants and politicians alike. But restructures can easily substitute activity for progress, confusing form with function.

Parts of ACT's proposal may have merit, in broad terms, and reflect a consensus emerging across politics. It has been nearly 40 years since the State Sector Act 1988 transformed the public service. Another overhaul is overdue.

The challenge is not recognising the need for change. It is finding the political time, capital and discipline to deliver reforms that genuinely improve the machinery of government rather than simply rearranging it.