MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23324, 9 May 1941, Page 8

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT

t SUGGESTED INQUIRY IN N.Z. VIEWS OP PROFESSOR LIPSON * “The New Zealand Government could well follow the example of the British Government in the last war'by setting up a Royal Commission to investigate the machinery of Government from the Cabinet system downwards,’’ said Dr. L. M. Lipson, Professor of Political Science and Public Administration at Victoria University College, in an address to the Christchurch branch of the Public Administration Society last evening. “Stimulating leadership is vital to the functioning of democracy,” said Dr. Lipson. “All of us know how effectively our institutions can Operate when a man like Mr Churchill or Mr Roosevelt is at the helm. The democratic leadership, which inspires the willing confidence of men is profoundly different from the despotism of a dictator. If leadership is to be forthcoming, we need not only the best men but also a structure or organisation which will enable them to give of their best. Can we say that our institutions do facilitate the display of leadership? “Take, for instance, the Cabinet, which bears the final responsibility for directing the machinery of administration. In Britain for some years the Cabinet has been much too large for all-round discussion and speedy decisions. Hence, when an emergency occurs, as in the last war or in the present one, a smaller body has to be created. Why cannot this lesson be carried over into our normal peacetime organisation? A Small Cabinet “New Zealand is more fortunate in that its Cabinet is much smaller than the British. Also, the New Zealand Cabinet can act together more as a team, because of the lucky chance that all the. Ministers have their offices in the same building. Here, however, our Cabinet system suffers from the defect that Ministers have far too many portfolios, a .defect which has characterised New Zealand Ministries for more than 50 years. As a result, much of the administrative co-ordina-tion which should be done by a permanent head is done by the Minister himself. Ministers are overburdened with work, often of a detailed character. "But the Cabinet can operate effectively only if there is a proper departmental system beneath it. This requires a structure built around an analysis of the types of administrative functions. There are four such types: first, the conduct of research and planning; second, the management of finances and of staff; third, the provision of services directly to the public; and, fourth, the control and audit of other agencies. Bqth in Britain and the United States, and in New Zealand, there is room, for improving the organisation of these four functions. “We need, for instance, a National Resources Board similar to that in America, a country from which we can well learn in this respect. On the other hand, in its organisation for financial and staff management, the New Zealand structure is superior to the British or the American. In Britain the Treasury is an over-powerful department, in which the interests of personnel are subordinated to those of finance. In the United States there is a three-member commission to manage the civil service, which is not as effective as the control of a single Public Service Commissioner in New Zealand. “Finally, modern democracies need to reorganise their .departmental system by consolidating some of the smaller agencies. We need to convert the large number of small units into a small number of large units."