PLANIFICACIÓN DE MISIONES

The Cabinet is New Zealand’s senior policy-making body. It is headed by the Prime Minister (usually the most important figure in final policy decisions) leading a Cabinet of around twenty two ministers, with a small number of junior ministers outside cabinet.248 _{Ministers are selected from elected} members of parliament from the parties (including any junior coalition parties) that command a majority in parliament.249 _{The formal mode of operating involves policy decision-making by Cabinet} and ministers who in turn are advised by public servants from government departments as well as by staff that ministers have appointed to their own personal offices.250 _{This suggests a top-down flow of} decision-making and formal exercise of authority.251 _{But other dynamics are also at work. Cabinet} and ministers are driven by: election and interest/support group commitments and coalition agreements; the rules, boundaries and constraints of ministerial and cabinet decision-making; the requirements of parliamentary scrutiny; the internal hierarchy of authority amongst ministers conditioned by seniority in Cabinet; the policy ideas of the public service itself; and the variable but influential characteristics of ministerial personal ability.252

New Zealand’s policy system is comparatively small in terms of overall size compared to other jurisdictions. It has a reputation for transparency and low levels of corruption.253 _{Transparency and} absence of corruption, it has been said, increase accountability and to some extent public trust.254 Some research also suggests that small scale systems tend more to borrow ideas from other countries on how to address domestic environmental problems, and are also more influenced by

248 _{McLeay, "Cabinet." Pp.188-190. Shaw, Public Policy in New Zealand: Institutions, Processes and Outcomes.}

Pp.76-79.

249 _{The manner of selecting ministers varies between political parties.}

250 _{James, The Ties That Bind: The Relationship between Ministers and Chief Executives. Pp.20-22. Shaw, Public}

Policy in New Zealand: Institutions, Processes and Outcomes. P.76.Note this is a relatively recent phenomenon.

251 _{See ———, Public Policy in New Zealand: Institutions, Processes and Outcomes. Pp.80-90.}

252 _{Palmer, Bridled Power: New Zealand's Constitution and Government. Pp.68-94. McLeay, "Cabinet." DPMC,}

"Cabinet Manual 2008." Shaw, Public Policy in New Zealand: Institutions, Processes and Outcomes.

253 _{See Transparency International http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ (accessed 12/10/2012).} 254 _{Heywood, Politics. P.389.}

3: NZ Context

international environmental institutions.255 _{Small scale can increase participation and responsiveness} but can also mean a lack of capacity to address more complex issues and greater potential scope for individuals to affect events.256

Within the policy system, environmental ministers have, because of legislation, greater formal decision-making authority than their departments.257 _{For twenty five years New Zealand has had two} Cabinet-level ministerial positions dedicated to environmental matters: the Minister for the

Environment for general environmental matters, and the Minister of Conservation for nature conservation (although the conservation portfolio extends beyond nature conservation to include some wider environmental responsibilities such as coastal policy).258 _{The Environment portfolio has} tended to be a middle ranking position, but has occasionally been on the front bench. The

Conservation portfolio has tended to be lower ranking. This generalisation changes from time to time, however, depending on combinations of portfolios, coalition agreements, or the party seniority of the incumbent. Since the early 2000s there have also been associate ministers. More recently a separate environmentally oriented ministerial position has been created responsible for climate change matters. This suggests that there is some potential for environmental influence within Cabinet, simply through numbers of ministers.

Between 1986 and 2012 there have been eight Ministers for the Environment and eleven Ministers of Conservation. The average time for holding either portfolio is two to three years, which

corresponds with New Zealand’s electoral cycle. Some have held their portfolios longer, however. 259 Whether turnover in ministers is an issue in how actively environmental policies are pursued, compared to any other policies, is not obvious, given that the turnover is mirrored in most other Cabinet portfolios also. Some environment ministers have held other more senior roles either concurrently or later which arguably (and this probably depends on manifesto commitments and the

255 _{George Buhagiar, "Is Small Really Beautiful? The Impact of Scale on Political Institutional Capacity for}

Integrated Environmental Management in Malta" (Lincoln Unversity, 2003). See also Bührs, "From Diffusion to Defusion: The Roots and Effects of Environmental Innovation in New Zealand."

256 _{R.A. Dahl, On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). P.435. Buhagiar, "Is Small Really}

Beautiful? The Impact of Scale on Political Institutional Capacity for Integrated Environmental Management in Malta". P.19.

257 _{For example, the Department of Conservations functions are subject to the directions of the Minister}

(Conservation Act 1987, S. 6). The Ministry for the Environment is under the control of the Minister for the Environment (Environment Act 1986, S. 28(2)).

258 _{The Minister for the Environment and an environment portfolio was created in 1972 supported by a}

Commission for the Environment and advised by an Environment Council (Both the Commission and the Council were abolished in 1986 when MfE was set up). The Conservation portfolio was created in 1987.

259 _{Simon Upton held the environment portfolio for most of the 1990s, and Marion Hobbs for six years in the}

2000s. Denis Marshall held the conservation portfolio for six years in the 1990s, and Chris Carter for five years in the 2000s. Geoffrey Palmer was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Environment concurrently between 1987 and 1990 and Helen Clark, Prime Minister from 1999 to 2008, was Minister of Conservation from 1987 to 1989. Ministerial lists are published on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_for_the_Environment_(New_Zealand) and

3: NZ Context

degree of personal interest in environmental matters) may have benefitted environmental interests. Examples include: Geoffrey Palmer who held positions as Minister for the Environment concurrently as Deputy Prime Minister in the late 1980s which assisted in the creation of the Resource

Management Act, New Zealand’s primary environmental management legislative instrument; and Helen Clark, a Minister of Conservation in the late 1980s and, when Prime Minister in the 2000s, promoted environmental sustainability as a key government policy priority.260

Within the public service three “central agencies” form a core Executive. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), Treasury, and the State Services Commission (SSC). DPMC has responsibility for advising the Prime Minister and Cabinet on all policy proposals which are likely to have implications for the government as a whole or impinge on issues of political priority or

sensitivity to the current government or Prime Minister (although the department is not as large or as all-powerful as in some other comparable jurisdictions261_{). Treasury has responsibility for advising} the Minister of Finance on all proposals with economic, financial, fiscal (expenditure or revenue), or regulatory implications. Its fiscal ambit is institutionalised. Treasury consultation is mandatory on all policy matters, and in part because of this it is able to exercise considerable influence. Arguably Treasury is the most powerful of the three agencies.262 _{SSC has responsibility for advising ministers} on general machinery of government issues, on proposals to establish, merge or disestablish state sector agencies (other than State-owned enterprises), and on proposals with an impact on

organisational structures, strategic alignment, and capability. The SSC is also responsible for public sector chief executive employment, accountability and departmental performance specifications, and workforce or employment relations in the state sector. 263

Beyond the three “central agencies”, the nature of departmental involvement depends on the issue, and departmental responsibilities. There is usually a lead department with some form of

institutionalised authority and a cadre of other departments with greater, lesser, or perceived

260 _{D. Young, Values as Law: The History and Efficacy of the Resource Management Act (Wellington: Institute of}

Policy Studies, 2001). P.19. Speech to the annual Labour Party Conference, Helen Clark, 28 October 2006; http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00539.htm (accessed 21/11/2012).

261 _{Peters, The Politics of Bureaucracy. P.144.}

262 _{The “Better Public Services Advisory Group Report” has recommended changes to the roles of the three}

central agencies that will, if implemented, increase the influence of DPMC in setting government priorities, increase the influence of the SSC over how senior public servants work, and confine the role of Treasury to focus more on the Crown’s overall balance sheet and operating statement, rather than focusing on individual agencies as has tended to be the default position. See New Zealand Government, "Better Public Services Advisory Group Report," (Wellington: New Zealand Government, 2011). P.8.

263 _{Cabinet Office, “Cabguide”, http://cabguide.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/procedures/consultation/departmental-}

consultation (accessed 16/10/2012) succinctly sets out the roles of DPMC, Treasury and SSC.

See also B. Guy Peters, "Concepts and Theories of Horizontal Policy Management," in Handbook of Public Policy, ed. B. Guy. & Pierre Peters, J. (London: Sage, 2006). P.19; ———, The Politics of Bureaucracy. P.365.

3: NZ Context

interests in any given function or issue.264 _{How all these departments operate depends on the degree} of political and policy priorities and/or sensitivity for the government (supported by the Cabinet ranking of the minister for the lead department), fiscal implications, and the perceived or actual capability and /or capacity of the lead department and/or its senior management.265

There are four points to make about the policy system that are relevant to assessing what influences environmental policy effectiveness. First, the Prime Minister, Cabinet and ministers dominate formal policy decision-making both in theory and in practice.266 _{Second, the three central agencies are able} to exercise considerable influence across the board because of their institutionalised authorities.267 Third, the size of the system, though small, nevertheless still gives rise to formal and informal policy subsystems where lead departments can exercise greater or lesser authority depending on capacity, capability and reputation or perception of the department, of its Chief Executive, or of departmental personnel.268 _{And even though New Zealand’s policy system is comparatively small, this does not} mean that its intra-government processes of developing and promoting policy are not complex nor consume considerable energy.

There is also a significant fifth point about New Zealand’s policy system, and the organisation of its environmental policy components. They have been influenced by particular approaches to policy responses, and institutional and organisational form. This is discussed next.