The current discussion is not about how a minister spends their private salary. The point is another: this was an official work trip approved by the Council of Ministers, and therefore there is a duty of transparency.
What makes the matter even more relevant is that we now have confirmation from the ministry itself. In an email dated November 19, 2025, the Chief of Staff of the ministry officially confirmed that the minister left “today,” which was November 19, 2025, for Curaçao on official business. The email literally states:
“As just discussed by telephone, I hereby confirm by email that Minister Croes’s service trip to Curaçao, originally planned for November 20 to 22, has been brought forward by one day. Minister Croes will depart for Curaçao today.”
That is the ministry itself confirming: this was a service trip (dienstreis), an official work trip. Not a private trip as the minister tries to insinuate. Her trip to Curaçao, initially planned for November 20, 2025, by commercial plane, was moved up by one day. Thus, the minister made an official trip on November 19, 2025, on a private jet.
However, what has confused the public is that the minister’s own explanation has changed multiple times. First, the minister spoke of a “lift.” Later, the minister said she paid for the entire flight out of her own pocket. Then the minister insinuated that they “shared costs.” Now recently, the minister publicly stated that she paid a landing fee of less than Afl. 1,000. So going from a “lift,” to paying for the entire flight, to sharing expenses, and to paying only a landing fee are not the same thing. Each of these is a different financial construction, and they cannot all be true at the same time.
Furthermore, a landing fee is not the total cost of a private jet. Fuel, crew, handling, operational costs: who actually paid for these? If the minister paid only the landing fee, who paid the rest of the costs for a US-registered private jet without an AOC certification?
Article III.17 of the State Regulation (Staatsregeling) gives every member of parliament the right to ask questions to ministers. We are definitely not talking about a Parliament wanting to live the private life of the minister. Parliament is scrutinizing an official trip, confirmed by the ministry’s own Chief of Staff, which was made on an aircraft without legal certification. That is parliamentary control, not political persecution.
The LAR Objection Advisory Committee (Bezwaaradviescommissie LAR) also confirmed in its advice: the minister has the legal obligation to provide the requested information. The committee declared the objection filed by MEP well-founded (gegrond) and ordered that the minister must comply with her duty of transparency.
Five questions that could end this discussion very quickly:
Who offered or organized the trip by private jet without an AOC for the official service trip?
What was the total cost of the flight?
How much exactly did the minister pay personally?
To whom was the payment made and is there verifiable documentation of it?
Who paid the rest of the costs that the landing fee does not cover?
A clear and documented response can close this discussion in a single day. The ministry itself confirmed this was an official service trip. An independent commission confirmed that the minister has the obligation to answer. Now the question is: does the minister have the willingness to answer?