Prime Minister Rejects Claims That There Are Too Many Ministers
, Deputy Political Editor
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
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Speech: Hon Andrew Hoggard To Federated Farmers At Fieldays
ACT MP Hon Andrew Hoggard Federated Farmers Rural Advocacy Hub Speaking Engagement Wednesday 11 June, 11:30 am Good morning, everyone. It's great to be back, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I'd like to start by acknowledging the significant effort that's gone into organising this year's Fieldays Rural Advocacy Hub. These events don't happen without a lot of hard work behind the scenes, and it shows. I also want to acknowledge Federated Farmers and the many other farmer-led organisations who work tirelessly to support and advocate for the sector. As a dairy farmer and a former President of Federated Farmers, I know firsthand how important your work is. Whether it's in the regions or on the national stage, you give voice to rural communities, bring practical solutions to the table, and stand up for the interests of farmers and growers across New Zealand. This Government is firmly committed to backing you—by reducing costs, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening frontline support. When I spoke at Fieldays last year, interest rates were a massive challenge for rural New Zealand. Make no mistake, that was Wellington's fault. It was the hangover from a Labour-led pandemic response that pumped out easy money without a productivity boost to match. Now we've reined in waste, got inflation back to the target range, and farmers are finally seeing real interest rates relief. We need to do more to cut the waste in Wellington, because the less resource the Government sucks up, the more is left over for people like you out in the real world trying to grow things. Over the past year, we've made real progress on red tape. We've started delivering on our promise to fix the resource management system and reduce the regulatory burden. Amending intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules. Pausing the rollout of freshwater farm plans while we make them more practical and affordable, and halting the identification of new Significant Natural Areas. Right now, we're consulting on a package of proposals aimed at streamlining or removing regulations that are holding the primary sector back. Most critically, we are consulting on changes to the NPS Freshwater 2020. There are several options being put forward. Now, if I remove my Minister hat and put on my ACT Party hat, we need to be bold. By that I mean Te Mana o te Wai needs to go. Worrying about the Paris Accord, whilst still a concern, is a sideshow compared to the hard calls we need to make with regards to RMA reform and the NPS Freshwater. Make no mistake, as a Party we have no interest in taxing the most carbon efficient farmers in the world, having methane targets far in excess of what is needed to play our part, sending billions offshore to be carbon neutral, or turning the lights off in homes or businesses through misguided energy policies. But if you ask me what area of policy scares me the most for the future of New Zealand farming, it is resource management and freshwater policy. Te Mana o te Wai has caused confusion amongst councils, and I see that if left in place its current trajectory will likely lead towards co-governance for regional councils, not just in policy but consenting as well, and policies that are based on vague spiritual concepts, not clear and simple water science balanced with societal needs. This debate will undoubtedly be noisy, but farming groups need to advocate strongly for clear unambiguous language in the NPS, individual farmers need to submit on what they are seeing and the stress this concept has caused many of them with regards to consenting. At the Treaty Principles Bill second reading debate many coalition party MPs stated that the Bill was too general, too broad-brushed, and that we should just focus on ensuring that we don't have unclear language and vague concepts in future bills and policies. Well I would suggest that this NPS Freshwater is a good test for those statements. You will see plenty of MPs here for the next few days playing farmer dress up, make sure you let them know you expect them to keep their word. Now, while I'm being a staunch ACT MP I also want to give a shout out to the Regulatory Standards Bill, for many of you undoubtedly are thinking, why should I care about something that sounds that boring. Real simple. If this Bill had been in place during my Feds presidency it would have made the job so much easier, as it would have highlighted some of the more impractical and stupid regulations that were dreamed up. Even if it didn't make the politicians think twice, at least the system would have shone a spotlight on the issues. We are so lucky that Bernadette Hunt got on the Hosking show and was able to show up some of the more daft parts of the winter grazing regs and they got changed within days, but they shouldn't have got that far. That's what the Regulatory Standards Bill will hopefully show up. But also, government doesn't just take away your hard-earned dollars through its fiscal policies. It also can take away your property rights through its regulatory policies, so this Bill will ensure that if those property rights are taken away then compensation should be forthcoming. This whole concept has complete distaste from the Left, and some lukewarm reception from everyone else but ACT. So, if more protection for property rights is something you want to see, make sure you put your case forward for it. Okay, back to being a Minister, if I can just highlight some of the other Government work that is going on that is relevant for farming. In the health and safety space, we've got Brooke van Velden leading reforms to get rid of over compliance, reduce paperwork, and make WorkSafe helpful, not harmful. I'm especially pleased about her work to protect landowners from liability when they allow recreational activities like horse trekking, hunting, or hiking on their land. It's about a shift from fear to freedom, opening up land for maximum enjoyment and enhancing the Kiwi way of life. We're also keen to empower farmers on the conservation front. I believe farmers are natural environmentalists. We live off the land, so we have every incentive to care for it. Many of us work to maintain stands of native bush or wetland on our land. For too long, the approach has been to punish this work, with councils looking at your land and saying, ' that looks pretty, in fact that natural area looks 'significant' and you're going to lose your property rights over that. ' It's all stick and no carrot. I think farmers deserve real credit for their contributions to biodiversity, and I'll have more to say about that at the Beef + Lamb stall tomorrow. In this year's Budget, we announced a 20% funding increase to tackle the spread of wilding pines—a major win for our landscapes and productive land. Another important change in this year's Budget is Investment Boost—a major new tax incentive to encourage business investment, support economic growth, and lift wages. If you're a farmer, tradie, manufacturer, or run any business, this matters to you. When you invest in new equipment, machinery, tools, vehicles, or technology—you'll now be able to deduct 20% of that cost immediately from your taxable income. It's a straightforward way to help reduce your tax bill and support decisions that lift productivity and grow your business. To put it simply, we're backing your success. We want to see a thriving primary sector that's not weighed down by complexity, but supported to innovate, grow, and lead. I want to thank Federated Farmers, and many of you here, for the constructive role you've played in helping shape these changes. Your feedback is vital to making sure the final rules are workable, sensible, and fit for purpose. Thank you again for the chance to be here, and for everything you do to keep this sector moving forward. All the best for a successful and enjoyable Fieldays. Thank you.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Climate Activists Dressed As Lawyers Would Sacrifice Farmers To The Climate Gods
Responding to legal action from Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, ACT Rural Communities spokesperson Mark Cameron says: "This is a courtroom stunt by climate activists dressed as lawyers. They would sacrifice our rural lifeblood at the altar of climate ideology. "The clear goal of this challenge is to place more restrictions on Kiwi farmers. It's the same tired approach we saw from Labour and the Greens. "Shutting farms down or burying them in regulation won't save the climate. It will just shift food production offshore, cost us jobs, and make food more expensive. "New Zealand farmers are the most emissions-efficient food producers on the planet. We need to back them, which is what ACT is doing in government. "This government is right to back off from costly, unworkable policies that punish rural New Zealand. The idea that New Zealand – responsible for just 0.17% of global emissions – should wreck its economy to impress international activists is absurd. "ACT is committed to climate policies that are practical, not performative. We will back Kiwi innovation, not regulation for its own sake. We'll support farmers, not sue them. We know that when farmers do well, all New Zealanders are better off."
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Responds To Legislation To Restrict Farm-To-forest Conversions
Responding to the introduction of legislation to restrict farm-to-forest conversions, ACT Rural Communities spokesperson Mark Cameron says: 'The Government is moving to address legitimate concerns in rural communities. Forestry is swallowing up productive farmland because the current system is rigged against those who feed the world,' says Mr Cameron. 'Red tape and distorted incentives make it more profitable to plant pine trees than to run a farm. 'There is more the Government could do to address the root of the problem. It could start by letting Kiwis offset their emissions overseas. There's no reason we should be covering our own productive land in carbon farms when planting is cheaper and more efficient in other parts of the world. 'It's also time for a wider conversation about whether New Zealand's Paris climate commitments are worth the cost. 'Right now, our only options to meet these targets are blanketing the countryside in trees, or driving up costs on fuel, electricity and everyday goods. Neither of those is acceptable. We need to ask whether the pain is worth it. 'Kiwi farmers are the best in the world at what they do – the freer they are to compete and grow, the better. ACT will keep backing farmers and rural communities.
