 |
|---|
|
Related topics |
 New Zealand portal |
TheCabinet of New Zealand (Māori:Te Rūnanga o te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa)[n 1] is theNew Zealand Government's body of seniorministers, accountable to theNew Zealand Parliament. Cabinet meetings, chaired by theprime minister, occur once a week; in them, vital issues are discussed andgovernment policy is formulated. Cabinet is also composed of a number ofcommittees focused on specific areas of governance and policy. Though not established by anystatute, Cabinet wields significant power within theNew Zealand political system, with nearly allgovernment bills it introduces in Parliament being enacted.
The New Zealand Cabinet follows the traditions of theBritish cabinet system. Members of Cabinet arecollectively responsible to Parliament for its actions and policies. Cabinet discussions are confidential and are not disclosed to the public apart from the announcement of decisions.
All ministers in Cabinet also serve as members of theExecutive Council, the body tasked with advising thegovernor-general in the exercise of his or her formal constitutional functions. Outside Cabinet, there are a number of non-Cabinet ministers, responsible for a specific policy area and reporting directly to a senior Cabinet minister. Ministers outside Cabinet are also part of Cabinet committees and will regularly attend Cabinet meetings which concern theirportfolios. Therefore, although operating outside of Cabinet directly, these ministers do not lack power and influence as they are still very much part of the decision making process.[1]
Cabinet is not established by any statute or constitutional document but exists purely by long-establishedconstitutional convention.[2][3] This convention carries sufficient weight for many official declarations and regulations to refer to Cabinet; agovernment department—theDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—is responsible for supporting it. Although Cabinet lacks any direct legislative framework for its existence, theCabinet Manual has become the official document which governs its functions, as well as on which its convention rests.[3][4]
The structure of Cabinet has as its basis the formal institution known as theExecutive Council, the body tasked withadvising thegovernor-general in the exercise of their formal constitutional functions (the "Governor-General in Council").[5] Most ministers hold membership of both bodies, but some executive councillors, known as "ministers outside Cabinet",[6] are not ranked as Cabinet members and do not normally attend. The convention of a cabinet meeting separately from the Executive Council began duringEdward Stafford's first tenure aspremier (1856–1861).[7] Stafford, a long-time advocate ofresponsible government in New Zealand, believed the colonial government should have full control over all its affairs, without the intervention of the governor. Because the governor chaired the Executive Council, Stafford intentionally met with his ministers without the governor present, thus reducing the Council to its formal role.[7]
The lack of formal legislation establishing Cabinet leaves thepowers of its members only loosely defined. Cabinet generally directs and controls policy (releasinggovernment policy statements), and isresponsible to the House of Representatives, the elected component of Parliament. It also has significant influence over law-making, and all draftgovernment bills must be submitted to theCabinet Legislation Committee before they can be introduced to the House.[9] Convention regarding Cabinet's authority has considerable force, and generally proves strong enough to bind its participants. Theoretically, each minister operates independently, having received a ministerialwarrant over a certain field fromthe Crown. But the governor-general can dismiss a minister at any time, conventionally on the advice of the prime minister, so ministers are largely obliged to work within a certain framework.[3]
Cabinet itself acts as the accepted forum for establishing this framework. Ministers will jointly discuss the policy which the government as a whole will pursue, and ministers who do not exercise their respective powers in a manner compatible with Cabinet's decision risk losing those powers. This has become known as the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility.[10][11] Collective responsibility is grounded in three key principles. The first principle isunanimity, where members of Cabinet must publicly support decisions and defend them in public, regardless of any personal views on the matter. Secondly, the confidentiality limb means that all Cabinet discussions are to be kept confidential.[2] This allows for open and explicit conversation, discussion and debate on the issues Cabinet chooses to look at.[11] The final principle isconfidence, where Cabinet and executive government must have the confidence of the House of Representatives. If there is no government, the governor-general has the ability to intervene to find a government that does have confidence.[12]
Formally all ministers are equals and may not command or be commanded by a fellow minister. Constitutional practice does, however, dictate that the prime minister isprimus inter pares, meaning 'first among equals'.[13]
Problems arise when the prime minister breaches collective responsibility. Since ministerial appointments and dismissals are in practice in the hands of the prime minister, Cabinet can not directly initiate any action against a prime minister who openly disagrees with their government's policy. On the other hand, a prime minister who tries to act against concerted opposition from their Cabinet risks losing the confidence of their party colleagues. An example is former Prime MinisterDavid Lange, who publicly spoke against a tax reform package which was sponsored by then-Finance MinisterRoger Douglas and supported by Cabinet. Douglas was forced to resign, but when the Cabinet supported Douglas against Lange, the Prime Minister interpreted this as a vote of no-confidence in his leadership and stepped down.[14]
Some political commentators, such as Professor Philip Joseph, have argued that it is a misnomer to deem the unanimity principle of collective responsibility a constitutional convention as such. Joseph views unanimity as merely a "rule of pragmatic politics", lacking a sufficient constitutional nature to be deemed a constitutional convention.[15] He states that, unlike a convention, governments may waive, suspend or abandon political rules,[15] as has happened since the introduction of themixed-member proportional system (MMP) in 1993 (see§ Electoral reform). One reform following the introduction of MMP allowed for junior parties in a coalition the ability to 'agree to disagree' with the majority in order to manage policy differences.[16] Following the 2011 general election the National-led government released the following statement in regards to the role of minor parties in the context of collective responsibility:
Collective responsibility applies differently in the case of support party Ministers. Support party Ministers are only bound by collective responsibility in relation to their own respective portfolios (including any specific delegated responsibilities). When support party Ministers speak about the issues in their portfolios, they speak for the government and as part of the government. When the government takes decisions within their portfolios, they must support those decisions, regardless of their personal views and whether or not they were at the meeting concerned. When support party Ministers speak about matters outside their portfolios, they may speak as political party leaders or members of Parliament rather than as Ministers, and do not necessarily support the government position.[17]
Ministers outside Cabinet retainindividual ministerial responsibility for the actions of their department (in common with Cabinet ministers).[6]
The 1993 electoral referendum in New Zealand resulted in a number of structural changes to Cabinet. The change to the MMP system ultimately led to a larger number ofpolitical parties in Parliament, as under the proportional representation system any political party can enter Parliament if they received five percent of the party vote or won one electorate seat.[18] The increased representation resulted in the need to form coalitions between parties, as no single party received a majority of votes and seats under MMP until 2020.[19] In order to govern in a coalition under MMP, it is likely that a major party will have to relinquish and offer Cabinet positions to members of aminority party.
The aftermath of the first MMP election in1996 highlighted the changes resulting from the new proportional parliament.New Zealand First received 13.4% of the party vote, giving them 17 total seats in the House of Representatives (in contrast to 8.5% in the 1993 general election, conducted under theplurality voting system).[20] This ultimately resulted in theNational–New Zealand First coalition as theNational Party, who received 33.8% of the party vote, translating to 44 seats in the House, could not govern alone.[21]
Negotiations forming the new government took nearly two months however the ultimate result being that New Zealand First were to have five ministers inside Cabinet and four outside. This translated to having 36.4% of representation in the new government.[22] The Prime Minister following the 1996 election, Jim Bolger, was forced to tell hiscaucus during negotiations with New Zealand First, that he would not be able to satisfy all ambitions of the caucus, due to the forced inclusion of the minority party into the governmental framework, thus highlighting one of the challenges that came with MMP.[22]
The result of MMP on Cabinet structure in New Zealand is also highlighted below under the§ Members heading. In the coalition deal following the election New Zealand First leaderWinston Peters was given the position of deputy prime minister, and New Zealand First were given a number of ministerial portfolios including foreign affairs, infrastructure, regional economic development, and internal affairs.[23]
Members of Cabinet meet on a regular basis, usually weekly on a Monday,[24] to discuss the most important issues of government policy. Matters that must be submitted to Cabinet include new legislation, involving draftgovernment bills; financial proposals andbudget decisions; constitutional arrangements;public service changes; government responses toselect committee recommendations; portfolio interests of ministers; appointments to government bodies; and international treaties.[9]
The meetings are chaired by the prime minister or, in the prime minister's absence, the next most senior minister in attendance, usually the deputy prime minister. Ministers outside Cabinet may occasionally be invited for the discussion of particular items with which they have been closely involved.[n 2] All Cabinet meetings are held behind closed doors, and theminutes are taken by theCabinet secretary and kept confidential.[2] However, usually shortly after the weekly meeting the prime minister holds a press conference to discuss important national issues.[25]
The Cabinet secretary and their deputy are the only non-ministers who attend Cabinet meetings.[26] They are not political appointments and their role at Cabinet meetings is to formulate and record the Cabinet's decisions and advise on procedure, not to offer policy advice.[27] The secretary has a dual role as the clerk of theExecutive Council where they provide a channel of communication and liaison between the Cabinet and the governor-general.[28][29]
The Cabinet room, where the weekly meetings are normally held, and related offices are located at the top of theBeehive (the Executive Wing ofParliament Buildings).[30]
The prime minister assigns roles to ministers and ranks them in order to determine seniority. A minister's rank depends on factors such as "their length of service, the importance of their portfolio and their personal standing with the prime minister".[6] Thedeputy prime minister is the second-highest ranked, after the prime minister.[31] Under MMP, there are typically three categories of minister: ministers within the 'core' Cabinet, ministers outside Cabinet, and ministers from support parties (i.e. minor parties which have agreed to support a government party duringconfidence and supply votes).[6][32] The size of Cabinet has grown over time. In the 1890s, for example, there were seven Cabinet ministers.[33] The number of ministers within Cabinet increased in the period up until the 1970s, but has plateaued at 20 since1972; this despite increases in the number of members of parliament. By contrast, the numbers of ministers outside Cabinet has grown, especially since the introduction of MMP.[32]
Ministers are formallystyled "The Honourable" (abbreviated to "The Hon."),[34] except for the prime minister who is accorded the style "The Right Honourable" ("The Rt. Hon.").[35] Previously, several senior ministers used "The Right Honourable" by virtue ofmembership of thePrivy Council before appointments were discontinued in 2000.[33] Currently,Winston Peters retains this style due to his appointment as a member of the Privy Council in 1998.[36]
Thecurrent ministry[n 3] has a Cabinet of 20 ministers: 14 from theNational Party, three fromACT, and three fromNew Zealand First. There are eight ministers outside Cabinet: five from National, two from ACT, and one from New Zealand First.[37] Additionally, twoparliamentary under-secretaries assist ministers from a parliamentary standpoint.[n 4]
The table below lists all ministers, as of 31 May 2025[update].[39]
| National | |
| NZ First | |
| ACT |
A Cabinet committee comprises a subset of the larger Cabinet, consisting of a number of ministers who have responsibility in related areas of policy. Cabinet committees go into considerably more detail than can be achieved at regular Cabinet meetings, discussing issues which do not need the input of ministers holding unrelated portfolios. Committee terms of reference and membership are determined by the prime minister and the exact number and makeup of committees changes with the government. As of February 2025[update], there were 8 Cabinet committees:[40]
Cabinet committees will often discuss matters under delegated authority or directly referred to them by Cabinet, and then report back the results of their deliberation. This can sometimes become a powerful tool for advancing certain policies, as was demonstrated in theLange government.Minister of FinanceRoger Douglas and his allies succeeded in dominating the finance committee, enabling them to determine what it recommended to Cabinet. The official recommendation of the finance committee was much harder for his opponents to fight than his individual claims in Cabinet would be. Douglas was able to pass measures that, had Cabinet deliberated on them itself rather than pass them to committee, would have been defeated.[41]
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_(edited).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)