Radical restructuring of Ministry of Works

Press, 28 February 1984, Page 10

Radical restructuring of Ministry of Works

PA Wellington The Ministry of Works is undergoing a radical restructuring which should prevent problems such as those over Central Otago irrigation costs, says the Commissioner of Works, Mr R. G. Norman. The revamp, which results from Ministry initiatives starting in 1982, should be completed during the third quarter of 1984, Mr Norman said. The changes were not theresult of the trouble over cost overruns for the irrigtion schemes but should make similar problems much less likely in future, he said. The Ministry has now been restructured into four divisions: buildings and property, corporate services, development and planning, and engineering services. Previously, the Ministry’s top management had a rather diffuse series of responsibilities, said Mr Norman. “Inherent in the four divisions is a direct line of responsibility. We now have an assistant commissioner definitely responsible for each division,” he said. Another important feature of the new organisation was a management support group within the Corporate Services Division. This was responsible for bringing together accounting, supply, management review, and computerised accounting systems. “These are the various things where we have responsibilities for accountability and costs — in other words, the kinds of things which I suppose to some extent have been brought to light with the recent difficulties we have had in Otago.”

These reforms in the financial management and other areas should make problems such as the underestimates of the Maniototo irrigation scheme costs much less likely, he said. Another important change was to set up a system of independent surveillance and control over projects handled by the various divisions of the Ministry. For many years the Ministry had architectural staff whose job was to give independent advice to the Commissioner of Works on building projects being handled by the operational part of the Ministry. This independent advice concerned costs and whether the particular building was exactly what the Government wanted. Now the Ministry was setting up a similar system of checks and balances to provide independent surveillance of other projects as well, said Mr Norman. “There will be a tendency for those who are promoting these schemes to try to get the best subsidy out of the Government. I have a personal responsibility to the Minister to ask whether that subsidy is really necessary to that extent. ‘The cold, hard facts of life are that the subsidy we should have is the minimum one consistent with getting the scheme off the ground; it may not be what those promoting the scheme have recommended.” The Treasury could not provide such an independent overview. It could look at the economics of the project, but the Ministry had the responsibility over the adequacy of the work in relation to the cost. The changes stem from a report by a former Secretary for Justice, Mr John Robertson, and the report of

a study group of the Ministry which examined the Robertson report. Mr Norman said that the former Commissioner of Works, Mr J. J. Chesterman, had asked Mr Robertson in August, 1982, to prepare a report on the organisation of the Ministry. This initiative was not the result of problems over the irrigation schemes, he said.

Rather it was because of the somewhat untidy structure of the various planning and development areas of the Ministry. The criticism by the Audi-tor-General, Mr Fred Shailes, over the financial management of Government departments had also been a “straw in the wind” when the Robertson report was commissioned.

The Robertson report was intended as a “rough cut” investigation rather than an in-depth one. It was then studied by a Ministry team. The present restructuring arose out of both reports, and had the blessing of the State Services Commission, said Mr Norman. The commission had asked him to stay on past retiring age to oversee the restructuring.