When housing policy is split among more than six ministers, who is responsible when the affordability crisis drags on year after year? The Minister of Housing? Building and Construction? Local Government? Environment? Transport? Infrastructure? Each controls one piece of the puzzle, but no one has the whole picture.  

When responsibility is divided, decision-making slows, and accountability evaporates. 

Housing is not unique. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment reports to 20 ministers. Treasury answers to seven. Education responsibility is carved up between the Ministers of Education, Vocational Skills, Universities and Charter Schools.  

One former minister captured the dysfunction: “If a proposal needs sign-off from six different ministers, that’s six different opportunities for ministers or officials to kill it.” 

New Zealand’s complexity makes it an international outlier. With 81 portfolios and 43 departments, we have more than three times as many portfolios and nearly twice as many departments as peer nations like Ireland, Norway and Singapore.  

Streamlining the executive is not just good governance – it saves taxpayers money. International research shows that larger cabinets are linked to higher deficits. New Zealand’s experience suggests the same story: as ministerial numbers have grown, so has government spending. 

The New Zealand Initiative’s latest report, Unscrambling Government: Less Confusion, More Efficiency, calls for replacing today’s ministerial and departmental maze with a structure designed for accountability and results. 

The reform pathway is straightforward. Portfolio consolidation could happen immediately after an election. It would reduce our 81 ministerial portfolios to 15-20 coherent groupings. A statutory junior minister role would enable meaningful delegation without fragmenting responsibility. Departmental realignment would follow over 12-24 months, reducing 43 departments to about 20. 

Sceptics may ask whether such reform is feasible. Australia shows it is. In 1987, Bob Hawke cut Australia’s cabinet from 28 to 16 and created a two-tier system of senior and junior ministers. Departments were consolidated into 18 sector-based ministries.  

Critics predicted chaos. Instead, the reforms delivered clearer accountability, faster decisions and better coordination. Crucially, they stuck. The core principle of consolidated departments and two-tier ministerial structure endured across decades and multiple changes of government. 

If Australia could unscramble its executive, so can New Zealand. Until we do, accountability will remain as fragmented as our ministerial portfolios – and the public will keep asking who is responsible, only to receive no clear answer.  

Explore Roger's research in greater detail through our complete report, webinar presentation, and podcast discussion.​