Prime Minister Rejects Claims That There Are Too Many Ministers
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has rejected claims by ACT leader David Seymour that the ministerial line-up has become "bloated" and riddled with "meaningless titles".
But former ministers from across the political spectrum have backed Seymour's assessment and his calls to slash the number of ministers, portfolios and departments.
In a speech on Thursday, Seymour proposed capping the executive at just 20 ministers - all inside Cabinet - and scrapping associate positions, except in finance.
As well, he suggested slashing the 41 government agencies down to 30, with each minister assigned a single department rather than multiple symbolic portfolios.
The size and make-up of the executive is ultimately determined by the prime minister - in this case, Luxon.
Speaking from Dunedin on Friday, Luxon brushed off Seymour's suggestions and pointed out that ACT had pushed for a new department in the Ministry for Regulation.
"What we are focused on is making sure the public service is as efficient as it possibly can be."
Luxon denied the executive had become bloated or that many portfolios were mere symbolism, and he pushed back on those - like Seymour - questioning the value of the new South Island portfolio created earlier this year.
"Absolutely disagree, completely. We want to focus on the South Island. We want to make sure the South Island is getting its fair share of infrastructure and delivery, and I want the voice of the South Island in the Cabinet as well."
The new Minister for the South Island James Meager sits outside Cabinet. The only Cabinet minister based in the South Island is Matt Doocey, with responsibility for Mental Health.
Asked about the looming Budget, Luxon told RNZ the government would find savings across all departments but would not disband any of them entirely.
Former ministers swing in behind Seymour
Speaking to RNZ, former National minister Christopher Finlayson said there were "far too many" ministers, associates and under-secretaries, mostly due to the nature of governing in a coalition.
"A few baubles have to be handed to otherwise unimpressive Members of Parliament who really shouldn't be there - or should be on a backbench."
Finlayson, now an independent barrister, served in Cabinet from 2008 to 2017 as Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.
He said he never needed associates and preferred a streamlined approach where each minister had clear responsibility for a single department: "And if you don't measure up, it's fail and farewell."
Finlayson described New Zealand's approach as borderline embarrassing: "if you send out a letter to someone and you're the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then underneath it's got the Minister for Racing and the Minister for Railways... it looks kind of goofy to foreigners, I would have thought."
He said many portfolios could be eliminated, citing the recent South Island role as "pretty much a non-job". He also suggested a more coherent structure for government agencies.
"I've often sat down - and this will confirm that I'm a geek - and drawn up my list of government departments, and I think you could get it down to about 20.
"It's not just reducing the size of a bloated executive and jobs for the boys and the girls, but it's making a more effective administration."
Former United Future leader Peter Dunne - who was a minister outside Cabinet in both Labour and National governments - told RNZ future prime ministers should take a "much more rigorous" approach than their recent predecessors.
He suggested a structure of 15 ministers in Cabinet and six outside.
"There are a lot of portfolios which, as David Seymour says, are symbolic. The titles are there really to appease sector groups, rather than to deliver specific policy."
Dunne proposed consolidating certain portfolios - such as Internal Affairs, Local Government, and the Voluntary Sector - under a single umbrella.
However, he opposed a hard legislative limit on the number of ministers and questioned Seymour's comparison with Ireland.
Ireland's Constitution limits the size of its Cabinet to a maximum of 15 full ministers, but governments can also appoint junior Ministers of State - of which there are currently 23.
Of those, three are designated "super junior ministers" who attend Cabinet meetings - a practice currently being challenged in the courts.
Former Labour minister Stuart Nash said Seymour's argument had some merit, though considered it ironic coming from someone who had set up the new Ministry for Regulation.
"Do you really need a new agency to reduce red tape?" Nash said.
"There would never have been a Minister of Regulation - or whatever David Seymour's title is - if it wasn't for ACT. Now is that necessary?"
Nash - who held several Cabinet roles from 2017 through to 2023 - said portfolios were often invented to placate coalition partners or key stakeholders.
"Do we really need a Minister of Fishing and Hunting?" Nash said.
"Under this government, there is now a Minister for Space and a Minister for Manufacturing. When I was [in charge of] economic development, both those portfolios were included [there]."
Still, Nash acknowledged there was sometimes a case for such standalone portfolios to send a message that they were a priority area.
In his Thursday speech, Seymour anticipated accusations of hypocrisy over the Ministry for Regulation and said that was different as his agency was designed to cut bureaucratic bloat, not expand it.
Seymour also argued regulation was a core function of government and so deserved its own oversight.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
David Seymour was right to question our compulsory helmet laws
There's little evidence our mandatory cycle laws improve overall safety, and quite a lot of evidence suggesting they're doing more harm than good. A jeering crowd quickly gathered in its usual meeting place, the internet, after news broke that David Seymour had asked his pet ministry to look at reversing mandatory cycle helmet laws. 'David might be brain damaged, but others shouldn't be!' said one taunter. 'How many taxpayer dollars were wasted using his overpaid pet staff to investigate this rubbish?' said another. The response could be statistically distilled into the sentence 'ha ha, you dip shit'. But Seymour's suggestion was neither dip nor shit. The Act leader's mistake wasn't in asking the Ministry of Regulation whether we should make helmets optional, as was once proposed by his fellow right-wing firebrand, Green leader Chlöe Swarbrick. Instead it was in abandoning his tentative efforts at the first sign of resistance from its anti-bureaucracy bureaucrats, who responded with advice noting serious injuries and fatalities have declined since a regulatory helmet mandate was introduced in New Zealand, and added 'removing the helmet mandate would likely lead to an increase in serious injuries and fatalities as a result of cycling accidents'. It's true, since we made wearing a bike helmet compulsory in 1994, cycling injuries have steadily trended downward. Research indicates that wearing a helmet significantly reduces your risk of getting a traumatic brain injury or otherwise bunging your body in a crash. On the face of it, the figures are compelling. Case closed, motion to appeal denied, say helmet law defenders. Squint at the data though, and troubling trends swim into focus. Cycling deaths and serious injuries may have reduced since mandatory helmet laws were passed, but only roughly in line with similar improvements for drivers and pedestrians. A 2023 meta-analysis of studies found no clear evidence that making helmet wearing compulsory for everyone improved safety overall. That's not ideal on its own. It's worse when you consider the laws corresponded with a precipitous dropoff in cycling numbers. Put the two figures together, and the number of injuries sustained per 100,000 cyclists has risen steeply since we started legally mandating headwear. The swan dive in our cycling numbers likely has a host of causes. We've catered our transport infrastructure exclusively to the needs of an enraged white collar worker speeding past a school in a Ford Ranger. Our streets are busier than ever, and the bike lanes hallucinated by talkback hosts remain stubbornly non-existent in many areas. But plenty of research has shown mandatory helmet laws kill bike share schemes and generally make people less willing to cycle. That impacts safety. Studies show a strong correlation between higher cycle numbers and reduced risk. The more cyclists on the road, the more likely motorists are to look out for them. Reducing the number of cycle trips also has a wider effect on population health. Helmets may alleviate the damage for the unlucky few riders who manage to crash their e-bike into a street sign, but more sedentary lives put all of us at risk of heart attacks, strokes, and worse, gout. The research persists. One troubling study found many motorists see cyclists as less than human, and that mindset is reinforced when those cyclists are wearing helmets and protective gear. Though we tend to think our mandatory helmet laws are a no-brainer, they're an international outlier. New Zealand is one of only three countries worldwide that makes helmets compulsory for riders of all ages. One of the others is Australia, a place we notoriously hate. But the laws make sense to us intuitively, partly because we've made our roads so unsafe. They individualise risk management, plonking the burden of keeping cyclists out of the ER on their flimsy fiberglass hats, and in the process absolving our politicians of making more impactful policy interventions. Greater Auckland's Matt Lowrie says shrugging off unnecessary and potentially counterproductive helmet regulation would be a good first step toward improving our cycling numbers. But to meaningfully improve safety and give people choice in the transport free market, he says Seymour needs to do the unthinkable and back the most effective, well-researched intervention on offer: protected cycle lanes. 'Helmet laws are a distraction from the more important question for a self-avowed libertarian like Seymour: why isn't he doing everything in his power to give people a meaningful choice to have the freedom to ride a bike for transport, and unshackle ourselves from relying on cars for every trip?'
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: We shouldn't undervalue the work of historians
In a public statement, the professional historical associations in New Zealand, including the NZ Historical Association and the Professional Historians Association of New Zealand/ Aotearoa have labelled these cuts 'false economy at its worst' as they put simply, 'our history deserves better'. Dr Marianne Schultz, Eden Terrace. Religion's role in politics I was interested to read two items in the Herald (Aug 18), one a report on David Seymour's criticism of church groups for promoting an education programme about Te Tiriti and the issue of Māori wards in local body governance, and the other an opinion piece by historian James Belich about the importance of understanding history. It seems Seymour has no understanding of history as he seems unaware of Rev Martin Luther King and Bishop Demond Tutu and their example of churches being involved in politics, and fighting racial discrimination in particular. Grant Watson, Murrays Bay. Not role of churches The quickest way to undermine both democracy and religion is to mix the two. That's possibly why David Seymour spoke out about over 100 churches organising political workshops on Māori wards (Aug 18). When churches run political workshops, they stop being houses of faith and start being campaign offices. Using the pulpit to push politics isn't education, it's manipulation. When religion and politics mix, both are corrupted. Democracy suffers because one side claims God is on their team, shutting down honest debate. Religion suffers because it gets dragged into the dirt of partisan fights, losing its moral authority. The Māori wards issue should be decided on democratic principles, representation, fairness, and community needs. If churches want to run politics, let them stand for election and pay taxes like every other political organisation. But they cannot do both. By speaking out, Seymour isn't being anti-religion, he's protecting it. He's defending the sacred role of churches and the integrity of our democracy. Both are stronger when they stay in their lanes. James Gregory, Parnell. Smartest in what room? David Seymour is reputed to consider himself the 'smartest person in the room'. Now it is reported that he had highly paid officials use their valuable time to compile a report for him on why requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear is a good idea. Which begs the question, where is this room and who are the other people in it? If it's the legislative chamber, then God help us all. John O'Neill, Dargaville. A state inside Gaza Strip New Zealand is under great pressure to recognise the state of Palestine. Some of the reasons are understandable but the stance taken by the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa goes way too far. Why doesn't our Government be innovative? Only recognise a state of Palestine in the geographical area of Gaza, maybe even then make it conditional on Hamas relinquishing control. We should not recognise Palestine in terms of the West Bank, parts of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Those areas were annexed by Israel after wars. Gaza today is Israel's overreaction to terrorism. Bill Capamagian, Tauranga. What about the hostages? There have been many issues raised about recognising Palestine as a nation, but many reasons why we should defer this for a time. The obvious one is, why has Hamas not released the Israeli hostages, and when is it going to do this? Bruce Woodley, Birkenhead.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Gaza and the Government: How to ‘grow a spine'
Such bravery. The Costs of War project says more journalists have been killed in Gaza than in both world wars, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia and the US war in Afghanistan combined. A funeral last week in Gaza City for journalists killed in an Israeli strike. Photo / Saher Alghorra / New York Times Australia, Britain, France, Canada and more than 140 other countries have now recognised Palestine as a state, or announced they will do so. New Zealand has not. I don't believe this reluctance stems from some softly, softly diplomatic strategy. On the contrary, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has said his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu has 'lost the plot'. So why has the Government not joined with most of the rest of the world in recognising Palestine? Perhaps the strongest opposition to doing this has been voiced by Act MP Simon Court. Is that party calling the shots? More questions. Is Israel committing genocide? Is it using famine deliberately as a weapon of war? Even if you don't want to go that far, the horror is real. While precision strikes are widely used against Hamas targets, the larger reality is that whole cities and towns are being annihilated. Beyond the campaign to eliminate Hamas terrorists, this is a war on a massive scale on a civilian population. To me, this makes the Government's inability to line up in defence of the people of Gaza a catastrophic moral failure. I assume New Zealanders who've been protesting weekly, across the country, would agree. And, as Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick implied when she talked of needing to find coalition MPs 'with a spine', it is a failure of our own democracy. I want to come back to Gaza, but first I want to look at what the impasse means for the authority of the Government and the future of MMP. Isn't it time for Parliament to grow a spine? Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick speaking in Parliament during a debate on Palestine. Photo / Screengrab via Parliament TV New Zealand's mixed-member proportional representation system has been evolving for 29 years. For much of the time, the major parties have formed a succession of minority governments, with confidence-and-supply agreements from minor parties. In 2005, for example, Labour's Helen Clark needed the support of the Greens and NZ First, so had to create policies that were acceptable to both. In 2008, John Key's National Party won 58 seats, just short of a majority. All he needed to govern was support from either Act or the Māori Party, both of which had five seats. Cleverly, he didn't choose one over the other but governed by toggling between them. He didn't have to agree to anything Act said, if the Māori Party supported him, and vice versa. This arrangement powerfully reinforced his political appeal as a centrist. Labour's Dame Jacinda Ardern, following him, found herself in a formal coalition with NZ First and the Greens. Policy agreements hammered out in coalition talks had to be honoured. Largely, though, it was the minor parties that had to swallow each other's dead rats. Labour was less compromised. In 2023, this changed again. Luxon arrived in Government with a pair of indestructible stone tablets hanging round his neck. Each contained a long list and ticking off those lists – the policy goals of Act and NZ First – has often seemed to be his main job. The consequences have been ludicrous and damaging. The divisiveness of David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill, Shane Jones' cheerleading for the fossil-fuel industry and NZ First's culture-war barrage have undermined us socially, environmentally and economically. But they have also undermined Luxon. Critics accuse him of inept and weak leadership, and he may find that impossible to shake off. Prime Minister Christoper Luxon, in the foreign policy pool with Winston Peters and Judith Collins. Illustration / Rod Emmerson The situation is now so absurd, the Prime Minister seems unable to wrest the lead away from Seymour on Gaza, even though the issue has nothing to do with their coalition agreement. On this as on so much else, he seems traumatised, a proverbially trapped possum with the twin headlights of his minor partners' truck close to running him over. Is there a lesson to learn? The obvious one is that shopping-list coalition agreements are a blight on good government. Is there a solution? Yes, there is. It's called Parliament. From time to time, the major parties have agreed to agree and have passed good laws as a result. This famously happened in 2007, when Labour and National supported Green Party MP Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, more commonly known as the anti-smacking law. Because of Parliament, decency prevailed. Isn't that the model for progress now? Parliament could agree to recognise Palestine, thus lining up with the pre-eminent diplomatic effort to end the war in Gaza. What else could National propose, with support from Labour, to escape the tail-wags-dog mess it's mired in now? Legislative respect for te ao Māori, which National used to understand quite deeply, would be a good place to start. Meanwhile, people die every day in Gaza. And, incredibly, a recent poll found that almost 80% of Jewish Israelis believe Israel is making an effort to avoid causing suffering in Gaza. But the tide may be turning in America. A recent Gallup poll found support for Israel's war has fallen from 42% a year ago to 32% now. That's the lowest it's been since the war began, after Hamas' horrifying attack on October 7, 2023, which claimed about 1200 lives. And 52% of Americans view Netanyahu unfavourably. That's his worst rating since 1997, the year after he first came to power. Luxon isn't going to wait until it's just him and maybe Donald Trump holding out, is he? Eighty years ago, over consecutive nights in February 1945, Allied bombers dropped 4000 tonnes of explosives and incendiary devices on Dresden, Germany. The bombs and the raging infernos they ignited killed 25,000 people, nearly all of them civilians. The next month, the same thing was done to Tokyo, this time killing 100,000 civilians. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August escalated the terror twice more. A protest in Gisborne against Israel's war on Gaza earlier this month, one of many that have been across the country. Photo / Gisborne Herald After the war, the world adopted the Geneva Conventions, which, it was hoped, would prevent such horrors happening again. War crimes became a thing. Democracy bombed those cities. No one was ever charged with war crimes, although we know now those bombings were wrong. Their purpose was to end the war, but in all four cities they were wildly out of scale with that purpose. Just as it is out of scale in Gaza. In the same way, we know the war on the people of Gaza is wrong too. We can't make peace happen, but we can support those who might be able to.
