Newly formed Department for State Development labelled ‘incredibly cluttered’ and ‘inefficient’

IT will be Yes Minister times six at the Government’s new Department of State Development, with business fearing increased government inefficiency and an even more cluttered bureaucracy.

Piping shrike emblem on flag of South Australia.

IT will be Yes Minister times six at the Government’s new Department of State Development, with business fearing increased government inefficiency and an even more cluttered bureaucracy.

Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride is worried Premier Jay Weatherill’s latest baby to “drive the state forward’’ will be so wrapped in red tape that it could hinder rather than help the state’s economic future.

The department, formed by Mr Weatherill after the state election, answers to six different ministers.

Mr McBride said he found it “really difficult to believe” that it would be efficient.

“If it’s an attempt to get efficiency that’s great, but there are so many moving parts, lines of reporting and an extraordinarily diverse range of areas, from arts to business to Aboriginal issues,” Mr Mc-Bride said.

“I find it really hard to believe that it’s going to be efficient, given there are six ministers and the Premier the chief executive has to report to.

“You wouldn’t get a very good report from a business analyst. It’s incredibly cluttered.”

The Department of State Development includes Aboriginal affairs, arts, business, energy regulation, immigration, industry, mining and energy resources, science and technology, and skills and training.

But Mr Weatherill defended the complex structure, describing it as “best practice”.

“In addition to creating efficiencies, the department takes a joined-up approach, bringing together areas that make up our economic effort including mining, skills, technology and innovation,” he said.

In June, Mr Weatherill announced that former US ambassador Don Russell had been appointed chief executive of the department, a role that he began in August.

Dr Russell had been the head of a federal government department with a similar remit as well as consultant to the World Bank and was a principal adviser to former prime minister Paul Keating.

Mr Weatherill said the areas the department brought together worked together under one chief executive who provided a “consistent framework and advice to the relevant ministers”.

“The poorer alternative to this is separate and inefficient agencies working in silos,” he said.

“I am also confident that we have a chief executive who is experienced at implementing this joined-up approach at a national level.”

Mr McBride said despite his reservations, he hoped the department would be successful because the state needed it be effective to “get the economy moving”.

“Business and the community need clear lines to interact with the department and for it to be accountable and transparent,” he said.

“But when its unclear which minister is responsible for what often no one is held accountable.”

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall questioned how the chief executive could effectively serve seven “masters”.

“The State Government can’t possibly run our economy efficiently when the government department respon-sible for growing the economy runs so inefficiently,” he said.

“This bureaucratic madness mirrors the masses of red tape the Weatherill Labor Government has wrapped around the SA economy.

“Businesses have to be efficient to survive under the current economic conditions but this is obviously not the case for state government departments.”

Mr McBride commended the Government for introducing the role of Co-ordinator-General to help developers with projects valued over $3 million across the state have access to a case manager to address “blockages” that might be occurring with state government agencies.

But he said that the need for such a role showed there were “real problems with the public sector culture” that might only be exacerbated in a large department.

Mr McBride said it was vital the Government followed through with its commitment to make the public sector efficient and make the public sector cuts that it had promised.

“Without the savings made from those cuts there is little left to stimulate the economy,” he said.

Mr Marshall said it was also a way to hide where public sector job cuts were coming from given the department has absorbed DFEEST (former further education, employment, science and technology department) at a time when there were 800 staff cuts at TAFE.