Dear Editor, The Prime Minister and his government are proposing to increase the number of Ministers from six to eight.

The reasons given, e.g. more money in the budget than 20 years ago and more work, are simply unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Currently there are 34 portfolios in total distributed as follows:
2. PM Mark Brown – 9
3. DPM Robert Tapaitau – 4
4. Minister Rose Toki- Brown – 5
5. Minister Vaine Mokoroa - 7
6. Minister George Angene – 5
7. Minister Albert Nicholas – 4

Some of the portfolios are small in terms of their budget allocation and others have huge budget allocations. That may account for one or two Ministers having four portfolios only. 

• In addition to the six Ministers there are two associate Ministers (permitted under the Civil List Act) and three assistant Ministers (not provided for in the Civil List Act).

• Ministers are paid $123,250.00 p.a. Associate Ministers are on $82,500. It is not clear what assistant Ministers are paid as they are not provided for in the Civil List Act.

• A Minister’s support office has a budget (minimum) of $350,000 p.a.

• Increasing the number of Ministers to eight means that one or two Ministers will end up having only two or three portfolios. 

• Two additional Ministers will mean additional salary for two MPs plus a minimum of $700,000 for the support offices of the two new Ministers.

The question that must be asked is “Are the taxpayers getting value for money?”

So far there has been a lack of justification from government for the expanded ministerial positions and the associated increase in spending. It is imperative therefore that we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current Ministers and their portfolios to ensure efficiency and optimal resource utilization.

The new Standing Orders of Parliament (SO) requires the Public Accounts Committee (Committee) to scrutinise and review government expenditure. The Committee is charged with examining the value for money of government spending. It holds government to account for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public spending. No doubt the Committee will be tested when these bills come before it for review. They will be tested as to their responsibilities under the SO versus their support for their political party.

Finally, I want to emphasise that political convenience in coalition arrangements should not overshadow fiscal responsibility, especially considering our country’s relatively small size and the state of our economy, especially the high rate of inflation. Additional expenses should be justified by tangible benefits for the nation. I therefore urge a thorough examination of the proposed amendments to ensure they align with the best interests of the people.

Tina Browne

Leader of the Opposition