Kerre Woodham: What's the point of a minister without a budget?

David Seymour is absolutely on the money with his call to cut the number of ministers in Cabinet and outside of Cabinet. In his speech yesterday, he proposed capping the number of ministers at 20 —currently there are 28— and scrapping the position of minister outside of Cabinet.  

“Right now, there are ministers that have seven different departments. There are departments such as MBIE that answer to 19 different ministers. There are portfolios, just to give you one example, not to pick on it, but the Minister for Auckland that Labour created – there's no Auckland department, there's no Auckland vote in the budget, it's just a made-up thing, frankly. And I think that really, we should be moving to a world where each department has only one Minister, no portfolios exist unless they have an actual department with a budget and a thing to do, and there should be no ministers outside of the Cabinet, everyone should be sitting around the same table. That's going to take a lot of people making a concession, but if we could get there, I think the whole thing would just get stuff done faster.” 

Couldn't agree more. I've always seen the roles of Minister for Women, Minister for the Voluntary Sector, Minister for Auckland, Minister for the South Island, sops to lobby groups. As David Seymour said in his speech, it's symbolism. Portfolios, he said, should not be handed out like participation trophies.  

Could not agree more. Michael Wood was made Minister for Auckland at the beginning of 2023 in Chris Hipkins government. Did he do anything? No. Did he have any power? Not really, no. As David Seymour said, there's no budget. So why create it? Because Chris Hipkins realised he needed to get Auckland back on side after the Covid response, after the crime waves that affected so many retailers in Auckland. It was a sorry guys, here's a Minister for Auckland we prepared earlier. Didn't work, too little, too late. Later on in ‘23, the red wall crumbled in Auckland and Labour strongholds went to National. Labour knows they need to win them back and Chris Hipkins understands they need to do more than appoint an Auckland spokesperson, but I suppose it's a start.  

Not everybody sees them as a waste of time – when the very sound James Meager was made Minister for the South Island, the Ashburton Mayor Neil Brown said it was a good move. South Island councils had told the government they felt their voice wasn't being heard, having a local MP promoted to minister outside of cabinet would provide a more direct connection with Wellington. Again, I don't think there's any real merit in having a minister for the South Island other than as a sop to South Islanders. You think we neglect you? You think Auckland's getting all the attention here? He is a minister, a fine young man we prepared earlier, have a Minister!  

In fact, everybody have a Minister! Minister for Hospitality, Minister for Racing, Minister for the Voluntary Sector. It nullifies the effect of having a Minister. If you don't have a budget and you don't have a vote, what is the point? If you make everybody a head prefect, what is the point? It devalues the position. It might make the minister themselves feel a little bit better, a little bit special, but if everybody's special, nobody is. The only good reason, perhaps to have a minister for anything, other than as a sop, is because you do have fine young talents like James Meager who are given a bit more responsibility. But are they? It's like an apprenticeship for becoming a real minister. It's an absolute nonsense.  

I couldn't agree with David Seymour more. We've had our disagreements in the past and this one I'm absolutely on board with them. There should not be a minister unless they have a budget and something to do. And government departments should only have one minister to report to, not 19. How could anybody argue with what David Seymour has proposed? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.