By Liana Downey (CEO of Blueprint Institute)

The recent decision by the Minns’ government to cut staff at Service NSW is a mistake.

Service NSW has been the one agency in government, laser-focussed on making the business of interacting with government as painless as possible – whether it be registering a business, getting your drivers’ licence or getting back on your feet after a bushfire. These cuts signal a troubling shift away from valuing the time of the daily punter, and in turn, risks undermining productivity and efficiency across the state.

There are three reasons this move is misguided. 

Confusion About the Model

First, blaming the growth in Service NSW staff reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the organisation operates. Unlike most government departments that rely on Treasury for funding, Service NSW was designed to be “self-funding”. It competes for work from other government agencies, contingent upon its ability to deliver services at the same or higher service levels, but for less money. So, an increase in staff at Service NSW doesn’t represent bureaucratic bloat; it indicates success in securing projects that genuinely benefit citizens and save taxpayer dollars. Cutting staff will likely lead to cost blows in other agencies, as essential services—like processing birth certificates, enrolling children in school, or applying for driver’s licences—revert back to departments that lack the specialised expertise to streamline processes and enhance customer service.

Preference for Style Over Substance

Second, this decision underscores a troubling preference for flashy policy announcements over substantive improvements. Politicians love a good headline—think “bloated bureaucracy slashed”, or “Gonski 2.0 means $30.6 billion for students”— but these particular headlines don’t line up with delivering real outcomes for citizens. As Deputy Secretary NSW Education, tasked with identifying the programs that would best benefit students, and thus should receive funding over the first two years of Gonski 2.0, it was disheartening to realise as we got into the details, that the funding was basically heavily back-weighted, with minimal real money flowing to students in the first two years. These tactics are an old trick which allow politicians to tout success while delivering very little in the short term.

In the case of Service NSW, we should care not about the headline, but about what citizens are actually getting for their tax dollars. Service NSW was built on a commitment to results, with well-designed incentives that encouraged service delivery. Unlike typical government approaches, which often prioritise “announceables” over genuine improvement, Service NSW genuinely was held accountable for doing more, better, and doing it with a smile.

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater

Lastly, this decision exemplifies a classic case of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” New governments often feel compelled to clear the decks, much like a lion killing the cubs when it takes over a pride. This approach comes at a significant cost—not just to those who lose their jobs, but to citizens who rely on these services. I’m certainly not saying nothing should ever be shut down, all programs deserve scrutiny and some should be wound down, but it’s also true that too many successful, evidence-based initiatives are frequent casualties of political shifts. History shows that many of these programs are later relaunched under new names, but without the expertise that made them effective in the first place.

I didn’t work at Service NSW, but I was both a customer, and someone who saw the team in action, close up, as they worked to streamline and improve services like enrolling students. I saw multiple examples of Service NSW both under the CEOs Rachna Gandhi and Glenn King, exemplifying what effective service design and delivery looks like–genuinely listening to customers and staff, applying modern techniques to tackle red tape and improve processes, tracking results, and continuously working to do it better. 

We don’t know how good we have it

It’s easy to get complacent when services are working. But that’s by no means the default state. Consider my American friend who was dragging his heels when it came to getting his Australian driver’s licence. I understood his reluctance – a few years previously, renewing my licence in New York involved months of planning and hours of time down the drain–as well as a whole lot of waiting in a grim room on the fourth floor of some obscure building, before being told that there was something missing in my paperwork and having to repeat the process. He was expecting something similar, so was gobsmacked to discover he was able to get his licence from Service NSW at his local Westfield in less than 15 minutes. 

That stuff matters – respecting the time of your citizens and making it easy to get the basics done, boosts productivity. It's simple maths – less time waiting in lines and on phones, means more time for you and I, getting real work done. 

Instead of embracing a model that prioritises outcomes and efficiency, the government seems to be prioritising superficial savings. Longer wait times, diminished service quality may well be the outcome, ultimately harming those it aims to serve. 

There’s a reason for the outcry from those of us in the know. The recent cuts to Service NSW represents a significant setback for both efficiency and citizen satisfaction, and its dismantling represents a substantial loss for the state.

Liana Downey is the CEO of Blueprint Institute, an independent think tank, and former Deputy Secretary of NSW Education. Contact Liana at: [email protected]

Taxation icons created by Eucalyp - Flaticon