Read the caveat on this page. This post won’t endear me to colleagues on either side of the House.
New Zealand has a ridiculous number of Ministers for a country our size.
It had got slightly worse under MMP but this government has taken it beyond absurd with 80% of the non National confidence and supply partner members bought off with a Ministerial post, and the final one on a promise of getting one during the term.
I spent three years as a whip which included cabinet committee experience in the 1980s and the nine years as a Minister in the Clark government.
I saw lots of weak, and some frankly useless Ministers. Most, but not all, were in the second half of the rankings. They often caused more work than they added value. There was an enormous amount of time wasted explaining what was either obvious or buried in papers that if they had been read hadn’t been understood.
Quiet discussion has confirmed it is no different in the Key government and was also the case under Bolger.
Consultation time seems to be multiplicative based on the number of Ministers with a stake in an issue. Minor points brought up by a department and easily dealt with or to by a Minister with a broad view become cause célèbre for someone run by their department or with nothing better to do.
I think we don’t need more than ten or a dozen Ministers. They should all be in Cabinet. And to trial talent we should use three or four Under Secretaries who report directly to the relevant Minister.
Having a smaller number of Ministers ensures decisions are well enough thought through to get caucus agreement on merit not on obligation because of position.
Saves bauble money but more importantly is much more efficient.
Dont see an easy answer to that…. its the same in business as you see some MPs with a business career who have had ever more vainglorious titles.
Look at this staff list at Beca Engineers- just one that comes to mind
http://www.beca.co.nz/people.aspx#.Tuj9S0JCr4E
Company reports of major corp show massive % of staff at what would be classed at executive level ($100,000+) and then there would be middle managers below that.
Perhaps if a small staff were given to committee heads they would be satisfied with that instead.
And halve the number of Ministerial cars? And other baubles of office?
I believe Manchester and Sydney have about the same population as NZ. Wonder how big is their equivalent of our Ministers?
I see Brian Fallow has also had a go at this. 20 Ministers inside Cabinet and 8 outside. Wow! Expect it is a way of keeping the would-be MPs seeking promotion from getting cross for their omission.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10773276
The US cabinet is not a good example as it doesnt meet very often as an advisory body for the President.
Plus they have a raft of cabinet rank offices that arent usually included, which Fallow misses out in counting.
As well US Cabinet members are more like CEOs of their department, where here there is supposed to be a strict division of powers.
Special Needs dept…
- sorry off-thread perhaps – but needs, must…
Can I put a case for keeping on an ex MP, or seconding a List MP for Central Christchurch – I read today that Brendon Burns is closing down the Electorate Office and winding up all ongoing work on behalf of constituents,.
This feels like Labour is completely abandoning The Central City electorate, being thrown to the wolves as it were…
I realise Lianne and Ruth and Megan will all be very busy with their own electorates in the years to come – but where will Labour’s voice be heard in the Central Chch electorate . Not putting Brendon Burns on the List may be a mistake that could gift National the seat in perpetuity.
Perhaps Clayton Cosgrove could be seconded to Chch Central?
Nicky Wagner, as a ‘local’ List MP kept a high profile office on a busy street here, I’d wager many people actually thought she was the local MP, and possibly that she was doing something on their behalf (though scant evidence of this exists).
Labour really needs to keep an office going in the Electorate to give locals a flag to rally round and someone else who will battle for their rights – the existing office is on a high profile intersection – please keep it – maybe all other Labour MPs could be tithed to keep it going – but please don’t throw it (us) all away…
Please pass this up the chain to someone who can do something about this – urgently!!
@Ian, good idea!
@Thread –
I agree that there sometimes seems to be a really large number of ministers of dubious talent.
I guess the proliferation comes largely from a) being an internal/coalition party “reward”, b) making a Minister of X is a signal to the electorate (false or not) that X is Being Dealt With Very Seriously By The Government. On the other hand, there sometimes really are genuine issues that cross the boundaries of existing ministries and a special ministry of X might help to prevent the issue being dominated by the other concerns of interested ministries; Minister of RWC might be such a ministry.
However, I’m not sure that country-size is a very relevant metric related to numbers of minister. There is a suite of departments and ministers needed by a country more-or-less independent of the country’s size. The issue is more the creation of small ministries that should really be divisions of another bigger ministry.
“…And to trial talent we should use three or four Under Secretaries…” This could be an idea, but would need to be careful to ensure that this was something more significant than a mere nomenclature change.
It may be because we have a unicameral legislature. Other countries have a second chamber with committees offering oversight on a wide range of issues, serving an important policy function.
very interesting post Trevor – lets hope you are soon in a position to do something about it, because it’s pretty certain Key won’t.
Ignoring the 50 state governors and their cabinets.
What an idiotic comparison.
I’d have to be a fence sitter on this issue. I have concerns about workload.
What impact would this have on the workload of the 10-12 ministers left? Would decision making abilities be compromised?
Someone might argue that ministers should work longer and harder for their salaries, but if this has a negative impact on their ability to do their job, or if it takes a minister away even more from his or her family, I would not be so keen on this idea.
If you have only 12 ministers, what the hell are the rest of the MPs doing? Spreading the workload of running this country seems to be a sensible idea. Sure, avoid having a Redundancy Minister of Redundancy, but getting back-benchers involved in the bigger portfolios has to be a good thing.
And if the ministers are useless, appoint someone else, don’t put them anywhere near an electable position on a party list, and don’t give them a safe seat to stand in!
I guess under MMP ministerial positions are a bargianing chip in coalitions so bigger parties would have an incentive to create more ministers/keep numbers high. So I doubt we’ll see the numbers go down soon under MMP.
But I think weather that’s good or bad is down to opinion, it’s a trade off between efficiency and too much power being in too few hands which might lead to corruption.
Can anyone explain to me why there is a Minister of Racing, but not a Minister of Children?
Seriously, how much does Racing impact on the public of New Zealand? Given that the Gambling Commission falls under the Department of Internal Affairs, that is a post I’d get rid of right now.
We have a rugby minister, a racing minister but no beer minister?
I absolutely agree, there are too many Ministers and far too many MPs. We should limit the numbers respectively to 20 and 100.
@Rosemary! I know!
!!!!!
! Just think of the tourism! 
!
So much could be done to enhance that area!
I wanna see an annual beer holiday be established, just like Oktoberfest!
Interesting Idea Trevor and one that many New Zealanders are thinking right now.
the idea of under secretaries is a good one, build up talent in areas and provides a secession plan.
We now have a minister for primary industries, which is a good move but why does racing not fit into sports and recreation. Do we really need a minister for land information?????
Why does Courts not fit into Justice? How does revenue not fit into Finance…… there are many unanswered questions.
One could assume that for every minister there is a ministry???? With all the work they are doing slashing the public servants, maybe they should look at the ministries and the ministers before they start slashing the hard working public servants, would be a very popular move…..
I am not sure that the Government or Parliament is feeling the mood of the nation about this issue.
Trialling certainly does sound like a good idea if so many incompetent ones are securing ministerial positions.
Given that its been regularly said that ministers (presumably just the competent ones) work very long hours, it sounds like its less a problem of numbers and more a problem of management/training/delegation.
If they are impossible to train, perhaps the list selection process needs to be improved – and the voters need to know who has proved incompetent so they have something concrete to base their votes on.
Trevor, why didn’t you moot this when you were a Minister for 9 years?
I’m basically cynical and always believed that the increased number of MP’s under MMP was deliberately done because the major parties at the time DID NOT WANT MP and I believe they thought we would hate having more politicians more than FPP.
Let’s have a review!!! Let’s look at countries with a similar population base and go from there.
Tupeke
perhaps because when you are in Cabinet you voice it there, but not publicly if it’s not your party’s policy. It’s called playing as a team. As opposed to, say, CC’s way of dealing with things. With Labour openly talking about new directions, change this is obviously a less “damaging” time to suggest something of varying popularity with colleagues.
Size:
I agree 20+8 is too large. Ministerial representation doesn’t need to be reduced so much as consolidated so that Justice goes with Courts etc. Logically group them. Some current combinations defy logic.Trevor’s a living example of the “minister for every thing” concept when he carried most of Paul Swain’s portfolio for many months in 99/00(?). Yes to the multi portfolios but give only one or two “groups” to each Minister (eg all Education and all Sport related roles) and use under sec’s for the workload. Half the number of associate ministers.
Some carve-ups have been done for political risk. EG Associate minister of immigration IS basically the Minister
for all individual decisions and can easily be end up on front page of the sunday star. It must be about as popular as the associate minister-for-attending teriary student protests for the tories or the associate-minister- for-fighting-the vested-interests-of-GPs-who-will-never-agree-to-free services for labour. Some of these carves up could surely go back to under secretaries purely for work load?
Performance:
“I saw lots of weak, and some frankly useless Ministers. Most, but not all, were in the second half of the rankings.”
How do we measure ministerial performance? Same principle applies to the list.
My issue Trevor is not that there’s too many ministers but why there’s a minister for racing and no minister for children. Maybe I’m missing some historical context?
>but why there’s a minister for racing
Presumably because the Racing Act 2003 grants certain powers and responsibilities to the Minister of Racing. If no minister is assigned the position then there is no way of appointing people to the Racing Board, for instance.
Country size is not a fair comparison, or Lichtenstein with 1 Prince 1 Pm, 4 ministers, 25 MPs, pop $35,000 and assistance from Switzerland would translate to 506 ministers & 3165 MPs not to mention 126 princes?
Very good point to raise every time there is a merger (such as Archives) where you see the advantage in separation of function. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander?
Minister for racing covers gambling (TAB) + techonology, corruption, breeding, and money laundering. I believe there are good historic reasons for this. Wouldn’t have a clue now, but very good point, where is the minister for children + family, the one that we do need. David Shearer appoint a spokesperson and push for this.
So which portfolios are redundant? Minister of Sport perhaps?
Looks like Carmel might be out of the running in 2014. We need to be careful not to run up the victory flag too quick
Carmel will be back!
Having read the comments here I think most have missed the point Trevor was making. The minor portfolios are not a problem as they are assigned as a minor job along with a major portfolio anyway. There is no standalone Minister of Sport ( or Racing etc) who doesnt have another portfolio or two.
Trevor seems to say the numbers in Cabinet ( 20) , which is the actual decision making body in NZ, are greater than the available talent. As the decisions of government are made by Cabinet, the briefing papers are given to all cabinet members who then need to ‘get their head around’ what its about. Obviously it covers all areas of government so a Cabinet meeting could make final decisions on Finance, Defence , Climate Change and Education at a single meeting. It seems that the ‘tail enders’ just dont get it, despite having the paperwork and their own advisor’s and departments giving them additional material.
It doesnt seem to be because of their knowledge or experience before entering parliament as say Jim Bolger, a farmer was obviously capable while say a lawyer who was a low ranked Minister could struggle with big issues outside their personal knowledge.
@Ghost
No there are too many OLD (Helen) ministers in parliament. Get it right, You got what Cunliffe called a shelacking because we are SICK and TIRED of you bunch of Oldies trying to turn back the clock to the 1990′s.
A mass of resignations is what is needed to finally cut out the Impression of Cronyness. Now me and a lot of those who I know were disgusted at the shenanigans of you oldies in pulling the strings of Shearer, because you did not like Cunliffe. I Will now vote Green, as will others, because of your meddling in the background. Shearer got in, because some Delegates listened to the dinosaurs and NOT their own electorate. Many Members and LECs told their MPs their views they asked them to vote for Cunliffe and Mahuta, clearly those MPs didn’t do that. The party and MP’s are out of touch with its members.
Now here is a question for you why is it that Politicians stay way past their use by date?? and this also is aimed at T Turia, P Sharples, A King, C Curran, P Goff, R Dyson, Most of the National party. The Pay must have a lot to do with it. Where else can you do bugger all for 150k plus per year.
I Also think that there should also be a time limit on you lot, 15 years, 3 in power and 2 in opposition or how ever it works out then out you go. Now I know that you do not like criticism (tough) and that you will probably ban me again
I’ve always had a machiavellian view of large Cabinets. In caucuses dominated by leadership it was canny to have the majority of the caucus tied into Cabinet solidarity. if labour changes leadership style and becomes more inclusive then such a reason will be unnecessary.
Workload is just the same, because every member should be reading every paper ( but they don’t).
Most papers come from a few ministries.
I like the idea f undersecs and I seem to remember that was the education team you built, Trevor.
I think that this idea is really worth exploring. Perhaps what we need to do is look again at the Golda Meir idea of ‘Kitchen Cabinet’. If we had a few senior Ministers (such as finance, security, social, foreign affairs and PM), and then break down these positions with Junior Ministers who are not on a ministerial pay scale beyond disbursements, but are using it to prove their skills and cut their teeth, and are answerable to the senior Minister, we could have a system where consensus is quickly reached at minimal cost.
The only thing about this that concerns me is that the fewer people we have at the top, the more room there is for groupthink and the less accountability to the Party, Parliament, and of course the electorate. However, rather than rejecting a good idea, we need to see if and how we can safely manage this in a positive and workable way.