Ministerial portfolio titles
November 15th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarA reader e-mailed in asking why are some Ministerial portfolios “of” and some “for”, as in the Minister of Health and the Minister for Economic Development.
Now the short answer is the Prime Minister can call his or her Ministers whatever they like, subject to statutory references. Of course even then, you can change the law such as when we had a Treasurer as well as Minister of Finance.
But I figured there are probably some guidelines for the PM, and that if anyone knew the Cabinet Office would so I asked them and they were kind enough to reply:
You have asked why some ministerial titles use “of” and some use “for” – such as “Minister of Health” and “Minister for Economic Development”.
As you suggest in your email to Rebecca, the current set of portfolio titles is a combination of tradition and the preferences of Prime Ministers at the time the portfolios were created. Many of the older titles use the “of” style (e.g., Health, Education, Finance, Defence), while a number of newer titles use the “for” style (e.g., Infrastructure, Regulatory Reform, Ethnic Affairs, Climate Change Issues). Paragraph 2.8 of the Cabinet Manual states “The Prime Minister determines the title and scope of each portfolio.”
So primarily PM preference, but also a factor of time. As far as I can tell, under Muldoon all portfolios were “of”.
There are a few other factors that guide the use of “of” and “for”:
- it is very much the case that when new appointments are made to established portfolios, the portfolio titles remain the same – whether “of” or “for” – especially if the title is used in legislation;
- “of” is often used where the portfolio relates directly to a ministry or department (e.g., Minister of Health, Minister of Justice, Minister of Corrections);
- “for” is often used where the portfolio description is more “generic”; that is, where the Minister is responsible for a particular topic or area (e.g., Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Biosecurity, Minister for Regulatory Reform);
– there are occasions when, for reasons of sense or style, it makes sense to use “of” or “for”.
What interested me was which exceptions there are to this. Key is the Minister of Tourism and you could argue that is a more generic description. However it is an old title, probably dating back to when we had a Tourism Department.
Gerry is Minister for Economic Development and that is the name of the Ministry.
Police is titled Minister of Police, but I recall people would joke that John Banks was better described as the Minister for the Police, as he was such a champion of them.
David Carter is Minister of Forestry and Minister for Biosecurity. But that is probably explained by Forestry being an older title.
Anyway I hope this answers the question, for the inquiring reader. Thanks again to Cabinet Office for the info.
Tags: Cabinet Office, Ministers
November 15th, 2010 at 10:31 am
I’d be interested in the ones that are named a particular way for reasons of sense or style.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 10:36 am
“Gerry is Minister against Economic Development”
There you go – fixed it for you.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 10:39 am
John Carter has made a thing of the fact he is Minister FOR Racing rather than Minister OF Racing to justify his largely hands off approach. He has a point, particularly given that he lacks Ministry or officials to do anything beyond his statutory role of approving appointments. It does beg the question however why have a Minister if the Minister has such limited role or powers.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Hmm. Abolish Minister for Racing – it was only a sinecure for Winston anyway.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 11:15 am
@PaulL – that’s a popular misconception. The Minister FOR Racing has been around a long period and in fairness, even if the industry continues to shoot itself in the foot, it returns significant export revenues and is a significant employer. Winston was smart about using racing people to get himself a support base but the “changes” he made we simply putting racing on the same basis as other forms of gambling, especially the casinos. It’s interesting to see the very hands off approach to racing in NZ – which is in crisis – compared to the very hands on approach in parts of Aus where the industry is far stronger. Anyway, happy to abolish the Minister for Racing if the govt hands back the tax revenues
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I for some reason stupidly had thought it was something to do with avoiding confusion around acronyms for example MOE for Ministry of Education and MFE for Ministry for the Environment
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
If I remember corretly, the Minister for racing position came about when Graeme Lee was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs. He did not wish to have purview of racing because of the gambling connotations and his Christian beliefs, so the portfolio was then separated from DIA and given to someone else.
Abolishing the title would only give offense to people in the racing industry without achieving anything so it has stayed around ever since.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
In the 1960′s a MP asked the Minister of Education what the difference was between principals, headmasters (or headmistresses) and rectors. The answer was the Ministry generically called them principals and individual schools could adopt what title they saw fit. There are some limitations, such as when Wellington College got into hot water for advertising for a ‘headmaster’ some years back.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Yet Hamilton Boys’ High has a woman Headmaster, not principal. And why not? Gender-based titles are disappearing thankfully.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I recall back in the 90′s when the then head of the SFO, Chas Sturt, had some stoush with his Minister (Paul East), Sturt publicly made the point that East was the Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office, not the Minister of, or the Minister for.
I think Sturt’s argument was along the lines of East having no authority to direct the SFO in its investigations (it might have been the Wine Box affair).
On a related issue, the PM is always described as the Minister in charge of the SIS, and SIS legislation certainly spells out that the Minister has no power to order the surveillance of anyone by the SIS.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
@daveski. The porn industry is a substantial generator of revenue in NZ. Should there be a Minister for Porn, otherwise we make the porn industry tax free? There is no reason to have a Minister for Racing – they don’t do anything useful and nor should they. Of course, if we applied that rule, there’d be a bunch of other Ministers that would disappear, but that’s no reason not to start.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
If the current trend set by labour (and continued by national) continues, we will soon have a Minister Of taking a dump, or should I say “Minister FOR taking a dump”.
The government is getting so involved in all the aspects of ones life we are ending up with ministers for every bloody thing. What the hell do we need a minister of climate change for, or a rugby world cup minister, or ethnic affairs? I looked at the parliament web site and a quick count gave me about 68 ministries.
I reakon one of the reasons we have so many minister is nepotism, as ministers get more money. Our country is run by a bunch of spineless, dishonest morons.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
“If the current trend set by labour (and continued by national) continues…The government is getting so involved in all the aspects of ones life we are ending up with ministers for every bloody thing.”
Yes Liarbore certainly were prolific in their laws which of course require bureaucrats to administer. They made more than just about any if not any previous administration during their time.
Has anyone been looking at these in the last 2 years? Do we really really need all of them. Can’t we merge some, delete others, and simplify others?
Really?
I thought the Nats were for smaller govt.
Vote:November 15th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
reid – “I thought the Nats were for smaller govt.”
Well they certainly want to be a more intrusive government that brings in laws based around stupidity.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4049000/Government-unveils-new-alcohol-plans
Vote: