What’s in a name: Ministerial edition
I recently sent an Official Information Act request to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) hoping to get to the bottom of one of the great mysteries of political semantics: what’s with the inconsistent naming of Ministerial portfolios? How come we have a Minister of Conservation but a Minister for the Environment? I recently received a letter from Michael Webster, Secretary of the Cabinet, with the answer I’d been waiting for. Here’s the scoop:
If you’re like me and spend too much time looking at the official Ministerial lists, you’ll see that the portfolio titles include a grab-bag of conjunctions. “Of” and “for” are used seemingly interchangeably, with the odd “responsible for” thrown in for good measure:
Examples of Ministerial portfolio titles following the 2017 General Election
“Minister Responsible for” roles are usually listed as “other duties” on the Ministerial list. These roles aren’t official portfolios as such, and appointments are made by letter from the Prime Minister. Ministerial portfolios, on the other hand, are appointed through a warrant, which is an official document signed by the Governor-General. When it comes to picking what roles get the “Minister responsible for” designation, Mr Webster says “Sometimes they are less significant in size and content than warranted portfolio positions. In other cases, though, Prime Ministers have used the titles… to signal that certain Ministers have overarching sectoral policy and delivery coordination roles, across a number of portfolios.”
The difference between a Minister “of” and a Minister “for” titles are the product of tradition and the Prime Minister’s preference: “Usually, when new appointments are made to established portfolios, the portfolio titles remain the same, especially if the title is used in legislation. Sometimes, of course, the Prime Minister decides to change the title, for example, to reflect a particular priority.”
In the new Government, there a number of portfolios with an amended title (in addition to some brand new ones). Some changes were the result of extra responsibilities in a role or a change in focus. An example is the Minister of Trade, which is now the Minister of Trade and Export Growth, which is no surprise seeing as export growth is a priority for New Zealand First.
Another change is the move from “Minister of Veteran’s Affairs” to “Minister for Veterans”. This is part of a trend to move away from titles with “Affairs” at the end. The Ministers for Ethnic Communities, Women, Pacific Peoples, and Māori Development all have portfolios that have dropped the “Affairs” in the last few years.
Mr Webster also pointed out that portfolios which have been around for ages (think Health, Education, Finance, Justice), are more likely to have an “of” prefix, and newer titles will have a “for”. “Of” is also often used when a portfolio directly relates to a Ministry or Department (once again, Health, Education, Customs and Statistics all are “of” and are supported by Ministries/Departments of the same name).
So there you have it. While I was hoping to uncover some thrilling and complex Ministerial naming system dating back decades, there’s not really a whole lot of rhyme or reason to the whole thing, just the PM following tradition and making the occasional bold statement to mix it up.
-AP