Comment from the Capital

Press, 17 April 1978, Page 14

Comment from the Capital

A troubled department

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

The decision by the Government to keep intact the Tourist and Publicity Department. instead of parcelling out some badly administered functions to other departments. is attracting a growing amount of criticism from within the department itself.

These critics consider that the senior administrators of their department know nothing of their activities or difficulties and promote the department’s travel activities to the detriment of its other functions, and that these obstacles will not be overcome until the functions are given to someone else to administer.

The critics hold no particular brief for the Department of Internal Affairs, which had been suggested as their new home, but are adamant in their opposition to staying with the Tourist and Publicity Department. They are to be found within three sections of the department — the National Film Unit, the National Publicitv Studios and the Information and Publicity Service.

Following a management audit to review the efficiency and co-ordination of the activities of the department bv the State Services Commission earlv in 1977. it was suggested that a further review might by undertaken to see if some of the department’s functions might not usefully be transferred. The commission subseouently decided such a step was warranted, and recommended to the Government that the three sections

be transferred to the Department of Internal Affairs, itself reconstituted as a Gov-ernment-servicing department.

It is now clear that the initial impetus for this review and the recommendation for the transfer came from people within the Tourist and Publicity Department itself, and not from an “interfering commission,” as has been suggested. However, the commission can be seen in retrospect to have played its cards badly. Instead of confining the attention of the Government to what it saw as the administrative inadequacies of Tourist and Publicity, it snreed its net wide over a number of departments and specific functions, it wanted the Government to reallocate.

It added to its problems that the Minister of Tourism and Publicity (Mr Lapwood), the member of the Government most affected, was a close personal friend of the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon), and that the package came forward in election year. The package offered the Government no political advantages, and had already attracted considerably criticism, in a year when the Government is keen to secure what advantages it can. But when Mr Muldoon announced that most of the proposed changes would not occur, but that a few minor ones probably would, he was not simply dealing with a State Services Commission reshuffling functions around the Public Service. He was also dealing with a number of Public Service employees who were very unhappy with their parent

department. This unhappiness has been increased by his announcement, which did not tell them why they were to continue to work where they were. Their criticism can only add to the hostility and divisiveness within the department, and add to the hostility felt towards the department by outsiders obliged to work with it. All this is very unfortunate for its newly-appointed General Manager (Mr M. Roberts). His background would probably dispose him to continue to emphasise the travel aspects of the department, but he assumes responsibility for its other functions having inherited a lot of ill-will. The travel functions of the department are important, and its critics do not seriously suggest that these functions should be waived by the Government. But its travel functions have traditionally held prominence at the expense of its other functions making it hard to attract and retain competent staff. At a time when the Government is keen to prune the large bureaucracy, does it really want to be seen both from within and without the bureaucracy to perpetuate inefficient management? The Tourist and Publicity Department has been unhappy for some time now, as well as being viewed with disfavour by sister departments who have to work with it. The resentment over the decision not to shift the National Film Unit, the National Publicity Studios, and the Publicity and Information Service, will perpetuate this situation.