Do we need more MPs?
We have 120 at present – give or take a few. It’s a busy and demanding job and a significant number for MPs are required to fill ministerial positions or chair select committees, positions that require a high degree of talent and competence. Maybe a larger number of MPs would provide a larger pool of talent to draw from.
NZ’s population is also growing, the number of MPs (per head of population) has been unchanged over the past 30 years. Also, the population of the upper North Island is growing faster than the rest of the country meaning that the size of the regional electorates is increasing.
More MPs along with the introduction of STV would mean that electorates could be substantially reduced in size, aiding greater connection between the electors and their representatives. Should the number of parliamentarians be increased?
Background: Size of the House of Representatives: 120 or 99 MPs? Research paper Published date: 5 Oct 1999
Feel free to Vote below and / or go to the next question – Should all voters be required to have a formal digital (RealMe) identity.
Each question is seeking a response on a range through “yes+” “yes-“ “neutral” “no-“ “no+” where the plus indicates strong support minus indicates mild support.
5 Comments
Submit a Comment
Join Us in the Journey
Get Involved
- Vote & / or comment) on key questions.
- Subscribe to the mailing list.
- Read the blog posts & comment
- Improve local body systems
- Sign the petition. We are reviewing the best options to make this online. TBA
If we make the other changes I have suggested in my comments on other questions, I suggest we begin with 72 MP’s from 72 electorates. See how effective the other changes are before increasing the number of MP’s and the associated cost
But this doesn’t mean increasing the size of the executive, and governments deciding to create the Ministry of Whatever They Want to Empower.
To me, this appeals because smaller representative areas make more sense. MPs are more available to constituencies. Electorates of a particular quality (e.g. bush, rural, intense urban, etc) are much better represented than being lumped homogeneously. In Auckland we lost a layer of local government with the Super-City. Big centralised administration is bad news.
The amalgamation of local government is a great example of the hazard to effective democracy that concentration of power or organisational scale can cause. The biggest problem with big organisations like Auckland CC is that a dud/no hoper/bully at the top of a large organisation can do a lot of damage. I have had a great deal of experience in this area and much of our local government woes hark back to the amalgamations and reforms of the 1990s. It is interesting to note that much of NZs infrastructure was established and run very effectively by the myriad of small local authorities and boards that had narrow functions or limited areas of control – in those earlier times when local government was truly local, formal consultation processes weren’t necessary as any elected member who was in disfavour got to hear it directly in the pub, the main street or the church. There is another problem with these big and effectively fulltime elected roles is that anyone who has a life outside of local government politics is effectively excluded from seeking an council governance roles.- this fulltime workload has narrowed the talent pool considerably I suspect.
I think we certainly need more MPs: even the best of them can end up overloaded with the different hats they are expected to wear. Life is becoming more and more complex and mnisters need time to understand their ministries, especially as most of them know little of their subject when they take it on.
I wonder if this question should be: Do we need more EFFECTIVE MP’s?
I.e., is it possible that the same number of MP’s could accomplish much more if they weren’t deliberately competing with each other because they represent competing political parties? I note that Walmart – the world’s largest employer – gets by with 12 Directors, an Executive Council of 10 and 34 Senior Leaders = a total of 56 senior people. While I accept that a government will have a wider range of concerns that a large business, I believe that 120 MP’s responsible only to their electorate are likely to accomplish much more than any number of deliberately competitive MP’s with oversized egos. In my view, our focus should be on designing a better quality of government – not a bigger one.
PS. Setting up this website was an excellent idea – but how can we get many more people putting in their two pennies worth?