Concept Of Policy Ministers Criticised

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32280, 24 April 1970, Page 46

Concept Of Policy Ministers Criticised

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, April 23.

The concept of policy ministers relieved of departmental administration could condemn a minister to a meaningless orbit of space, the Minister of Education (Mr Taiboys) said today.

Mr Taiboys was outlining possible future systems of Government in New Zealand to a meeting of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Institute of Public Administration.

He conceded that in the future the Cabinet would probably have to devote more attention to decisions with long-term implications, and that the idea of policy ministers relieved of the burden of everyday control of a department had “superficial” attractions.

“But it is a fact of life that we can never divorce ourselves entirely from detail,” Mr Taiboys said.

. The Minister said 30 or 40 , papers—“the distilled wis- ' dom gleaned from many i hours of heated departmental I discussion, condensed by the . application of quantities of . Treasury cold water”—made ' up the average Cabinet ■ agenda. About 75 to 80 per cent of proposals submitted to the ® Cabinet were approved as 1 recommended, “but for the e doubtful case the Cabinet al- ’ ways, to the minister’s cha--1 grin, finds time for detailed ' discussion," he said. Mr Taiboys said a minis- • ter’s grasp of his subject could be the decisive factor; » in a decision by the Cabinet. > Where his colleagues felt ; that there were implications which had not been fully - appreciated, “his view is likely to fail, or a decision be held while the minister may come back to fight the issue again, refreshed with new facts, or he may be so discouraged by his previous s inability to convince his colr leagues that he is no longer , convinced himself.” s Mr Taiboys said that in • New Zealand, contrary to practice in Britain, all major i decisions were made by the - Cabinet whether or not they i involved more than one dei partment. ! “In fact, it is the Cabinet I which governs,” he said. “The I development of the Cabinet committee system has played - a part in enabling the , Cabinet to meet the ad- ■ ditional demands placed on it I by the growth, both in ■ volume and complexity, of ; matters calling for Government decision.” 1

But most Cabinet. committees did not have power of decision, he said. The Government in New Zealand had never deserved the rebuke that it reacted to events rather than decided them.” He said, however, that “clearly the time-span of our thinking must be extended, and our understanding of planning techniques and requirements enlarged.”