John MacDonald: Do we need more MPs?

Do we need more MPs? The NZ Initiative thinks we do - saying today that, instead of 120, we should have 170.

It says the number of MPs in New Zealand is low compared to other countries with similar populations and we need 50 more to keep them accessible to voters.

Another thing it’s calling for is a four-year parliamentary term. That’s a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned. But 50 more MPs? No thanks.

However, I do think some change is needed because of the size of some of our electorates.

Which is essentially why the NZ Initiative is advocating for more MPs.

But I think a much better option would be to have less list MPs and more electorate MPs.

Because, you think about the size of some electorates - the West Coast is a prime example - I’ve always thought it’s crazy that one electorate MP has to represent and cover such a huge area.

The Te Tai Tonga Maori seat is another one. One MP has to cover the whole South Island - as well as Stewart Island, the Chatham Islands, Wellington City and the Hutt Valley.

The reason the NZ Initiative is making this call today, is because it’s reviewed the last 30 years under the MMP voting system. And its two key points are the parliamentary term and the number of MPs.

Senior Fellow Nick Clark says the three-year term is too short for effective long-term policymaking. He says: "By the time a government finds its feet and starts implementing policy, it is already thinking about the next election. A four-year term would give governments time to develop coherent long-term policies."

No argument from me there.

He also says our parliament - with 120 MPs - is about 30 percent smaller than international benchmarks say it should be.

So he says get 50 more. He also thinks we need less cabinet ministers and reckons 15 would be enough.

But I reckon he’s going to be pushing it uphill to sell his idea of more politicians.

I’m not sold. Far from it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from NEWSTALKSB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Do we need more Members of Parliament? Do we need
to get more mpce? The New Zealand Initiative thinks we do,
and it's saying today that instead of the one hundred
and twenty we've got, we should have wait for it,
one hundred and seventy. It says the number of MPs
in New Zealand is low compared to other countries with

(00:35):
similar populations, and we need fifty more. Bring him fifty
more to keep our politicians accessible to voters. Now I
can kind of see the logic. I'll tell you what.
I can't support having fifty more MPs in Parliament. Just
can't bring myself to support that notion. Another thing the

(00:57):
think tanks calling for is a four year parliamentary term.
But that's a that's an that's an absolute no brainer
as far as I'm concerned. But fifty more more MPs,
no thanks. However, I'm not saying that no changes needed.
I think some changes needed because of the size of
some of our electorates, which is essentially why the New

(01:21):
Zealand Initiative is advocating for more MPs fifty more that
I think a much better option would be to have
less list MPs and more electorate MPs instead of squeezing
another fifty into parliament. I reckon that that would be
a way more practical and acceptable way of doing it.

(01:44):
Because you think about the size of our electorates West
Coast for example, prime example. I've always thought it's crazy
that one electorate MP has to represent and cover such
a huge area the tet Titonga MLBI SID that's another example,
one MP covering the whole of the South Island as

(02:08):
well as Stuart Island, the Channem Islands, Wellington City and
the Hunt Valley. And it's our old mate Tarkut Ferris
who currently holds that seat. Maybe he's behaving the way
he is or the way he has been recently because
of the workload. Who knows. You get my point, don't you?

Speaker 1 (02:29):
So?

Speaker 2 (02:29):
The reason the New Zealand Initiatives making the school today
is because it's reviewed the last thirty years under the
MMP voting system, and it's pointed out this one hundred
page report this morning, and the two key points are
the parliamentary term and the number of MPs and senior
fellow Nick Clark, he's the mouthpiece for the group on

(02:50):
this one, and he's saying that the three year term
two short for effective long term policy making. He says,
by the time a government finds its feet and starts
implementing policy, it is already thinking about the next election.
He says a four year term would give governments time
to develop coherent long term policies while he is hoping

(03:10):
either way, no argument from me there. But then he
starts talking about more MPs. There's reason being that with
one hundred and twenty MPs, our parliament is about thirty
percent smaller than international benchmarks say that it should be.
So he says, get fifty more. He also thinks we

(03:31):
need less cabinet ministers, thinks fifteen would be enough. And
he's saying, look, these reforms or these ideas is not
about radical redesign. It's about updating a system that has
served us well but now needs modernizing for twenty first
century realities. He says, after thirty years, we know what
works and we know what doesn't. But I'll tell you
what I reckon. He's going to be pushing it uphill

(03:54):
to sell us this idea of more MPs. Granted it
was a while ago, but you know, back in nineteen
ninety nine, a mess of eighty one percent of voters
said they wanted to see Parliament's numbers actually reduced from
one hundred and twenty to ninety nine, and two years
ago an official review of the electoral system flowed the
idea of increasing the number of MPs by ten, but

(04:17):
the government was quick to pour cold water on that.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks at be Christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.