A government review of constitutional arrangements will look at the size of Parliament and length of the electoral term among others, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples said today.
What is your view on how many MPs there should be in New Zealand, and how long should they be elected for?
Here is the release from English and Sharples
The Government will conduct a wide-ranging review of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples announced today.
“This is the start of what will be a considered process over the next three years,” Mr English says.
“The review is deliberately wide-ranging and will include matters such as the size of Parliament, the length of the electoral term, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.
“New Zealand has a long history of incremental constitutional change and we are keen to stimulate debate on these matters, hear the public's views and consider whether any aspects require change.
“Of course, we will keep in mind that enduring constitutional changes generally require a broad base of support. Significant change will not be undertaken lightly and will require either broad cross-party agreement or the majority support of voters at a referendum," Mr English says.
Mr English and Dr Sharples will lead the review in consultation with a cross-party reference group of MPs. They will write to all party leaders in the next few days and ask them to nominate a representative for the cross party reference group.
“Public consultation will guide the review, and information and education campaigns will be part of the review process,” Dr Sharples says.
“I know Maori want to talk about the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our consultation, and how our legal and political systems can reflect Tikanga Maori. Proper consideration of these issues cannot be rushed,” he says.
An advisory panel will support the ministers, who will make a final report to Cabinet by the end of 2013. The Government will respond within six months.
The ministers' first report to Cabinet - expected by June 2011 - will seek agreement on the makeup of the advisory panel, a plan for public engagement and how the review will interact with other government projects with a constitutional dimension - such as the referendum on MMP.
The review, which is part of the confidence and supply agreement between the National and Maori Parties, will take a break in the second half of 2011 to allow for the general election, before resuming in 2012. The ministers will then provide six-monthly reports to Cabinet.
The review will be funded from departmental baselines in 2010/11. Funding after that will depend on the scope Cabinet agrees to after the first report.
Terms of reference
Electoral matters including:
The size of Parliament.
The length of terms of Parliament and whether or not the term should be fixed.
The size and number of electorates, including the method for calculating size.
Electoral integrity legislation.
Crown-Maori relationship matters including:
Maori representation including the Maori Electoral Option, Maori electoral participation and Maori seats in Parliament and local government.
The role of the Treaty of Waitangi within New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.
Other constitutional matters
· Whether New Zealand should have a written constitution.
· Bill of Rights issues.
The review will also be open to considering other issues and perspectives that are raised during public engagement. For example, this may include public interest in whether New Zealand should move to a republic, or the relationship between central and local government.
The full Cabinet paper is available at: http://beehive.govt.nz/webfm_send/16
34 Comments
I've always seen the short term of NZ Parliament as being directly linked to the lack of a second chamber. If enough people don't like what's going on, the next election is only just around the corner.
Allowing longer terms without bringing in some form of checks and balances would be a problem.
Maybe so Bill but any bunch of liars would know they face a long term playing silly games out of office and that just might make them more prudent and less stupid when in power....throw in the need for only 60 mps and the millions that would save....and we might have us a good system.
I think a longer time in power leads to a lack of focus and a feeling of insulation... ie the Govn forgets about the voters, every 3 years brings that back .....
Way less MPs would concren me as there could be less representation for smaller groups and more power per MP....neither I see as good, 100 maybe, I'd like to see the pros and cons....
regards
Come on Steven, the there is too much pandering to smaller groups. Rich and ethnic based seem the only groups who get anywhere. Lets be realistic, NZ can’t afford to pander to the loudest or varied specialist interest groups, it has too big an effect of imbalance. The country must lose at least half the number of MP's, and the country see itself as one people, not a bunch of divided groups all screaming for some milk.
As for the term length, with the immature media and politicians only listening to polls so it would seem, under the 3 year term, we are in an election year, had one last year, or have one next year, its ridiculous. It could work if the media and poly's grew up, but they won't as its not in their interests, so the charade will continue.
How many decades has NZ been talking about the same issues, watching the same sad scenes and childish games on TV. Give me strength it’s been and is a sad joke
Was commenting on related topic earlier:
"I think it is this trade off that challenges politicians of Don B's ilk as much as it did Helen Clark and does now John Key - the MMP challenge in other words. The safe option seems to be consenual and poll driven management (I'll not malign the word leadership in this instance) while more direct (old?) styles previously associated with FPP don't work either, because it was this direct/old style that MMP was meant to moderate. So is MMP bad, or are our politcians lacking the appropriate skills to lead effective change in an MMP environment? I've come around to believing the latter."
One of the problems I see is the lack of damping or moderation in a unicameral legislature. See an article by Matthew Hooton in the SST 23/11/08 called, 'Pariament needs a handbrake' (not online) and:
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/11/13/does-parliament-need-to-slow-down/
Where the absence of a second house is discussed. I think it might be a useful step to modify MMP to something less demanding of the wider range of leadership skills, have longer terms, but add the moderation of an effective second house (long standing ex-MPs, only) - especially if there were also some way of reducing/erradicating list MP's.
Cheers, Les.
So if you're saying that national voters voted in a party to engage in poll driven management then what does that say about voters?
People are still missing the point - would anything be different under FPP? A Muldoon or a Lange/Douglas anyone?
If the debate is MMP vs. FPP then MMP wins hands down. But then, the politicians always frame it as a two horse race - there are other alternatives.
I don't think a second house is entirely necessary, but I would really like to see a written constitution and a Bill of Rights with some teeth - i.e. where the Supreme Court can strike down a clause. We're one of the few democracies without such provisions and it's a copout to wave hands in the air saying it's too hard.
Of the Anglophone countries, the most well known is obviously the U.S., but Canada - probably the most similar to us in terms of having the Westminster system and treaties with indigenous peoples - has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Irish Constitution offers judicial review based on individual rights. Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights, but does have an entrenched constitution that sets out how the country is governed. The UK does not have a single written constitution and the bulk of our constitution is based on a collection of laws and conventions developed there.
What basis would you elect a second house on? The House we have is already based on population. Any move to regional representation without regard to population would effectively give rural NZ a veto over the majority who live in the cities. That is, in effect, a back door way for the National Party to veto the program of any government no matter who wins the election in the lower house.
No thanks.
Does anyone really think that scrapping Maori seats is an option?
It can probably be proven now that the election of Maori in General seats is already working well. The difficulty in defining who is a maori can only get more so as dilution by interbreeding finally solves any question that arises now. Meanwhile we will have to live through seemingly endless discussion on where we go.
Better to make a clean break.
Does anyone really think that scrapping Maori seats is an option?
It can probably be proven now that the election of Maori in General seats is already working well. The difficulty in defining who is a maori can only get more so as dilution by interbreeding finally solves any question that arises now. Meanwhile we will have to live through seemingly endless discussion on where we go.
Better to make a clean break.
MMP referendum 2011 - shouldn't this be done after / as part of this review?
Why is the 'size of Parliament' wrapped up with Maori seats - was 'size of Parliament' part of the 'confidence and supply' agreement - not obviously so in the linked document.
Seems sort of jumbled to me.
A constitution could enhance stability. A bill of rights and a limitation on what laws are allowed creates assurances. Without it, there is always the looming risk that the current government passes a nasty law in a reactionary response to some news media event.
A treaty is an agreement between two separate nations. For it to remain relevant, Māori need to be separate. Otherwise integrated, and in such case the treaty becomes irrelevant. Not some half-way point that creates special rights and strife. We don't need strife.
My ᏣᎳᎩ Tsalagi (Cherokee) ancestors were forcibly moved from Georgia to Oklahoma along the trail of tears. Terrible crimes were committed against them, including having their land stolen. Does that give me a right to go to Georgia and kick out the people living on that land today? No. Crimes against my ancestors by people long dead are not recoverable by me, I am not my ancestors, I am a separate person, making my way in a vastly changed world.
I'm happy with the Parliamentary arrangements we have now. The number of MPs is about right. The voting system is about right, too. MMP allows us all at least one vote that we can be fairly certain will contribute to election of not just one MP, but many. I have no problem with list MPs. They are effectively elected from a single, national constituency and they stood for the party that selected them. This is no different than any local MP. In fact, list MPs are better because they are only there because the party got enough votes....whereas a local MP can win a seat in a split election despite the vast majority of local voters not voting for that person.
Having observed National's approach to democracy for several decades, their usual tendency is to attempt to exclude as many people as possible while pretending to consult them.
This exactly what was done in Auckland. Lots of public consultation boiled down to a Council where the combined total of ALL votes for those elected is about 37.5% of all votes cast. To up it another way, 62.5% of votes cast in Auckland for the Council did not elect a single person to it. The worst affected areas with Albany Ward and North Shore Ward, In Albany Ward, the two people elected each got less than 10% of the vote. The number of votes that elected no one at all was about 81%. Similarly North Shore Ward saw two people elected. One with 16% of the vote and the other with 14.5% of the vote. 70% of all votes returned elected no one at all.
This is the "democracy" National delivered for Auckland..."guided" by public consultation.
They want to get rid of MMP - and effectively deprive over a million voters (minor parties and major party voters in safe seats of the other party) of the power to elect anyone. if this were not true, we would not be having a referendum on MMP.
It is hard not to see every move this government makes as being directed in some way toward reducing the power and influence of voters. Their track record so far cannot be more clear.
If my children or my neighbours want to elect people I don't like, I would not be so arrogant as to gerrymander the voting system to prevent them from being able to do it. Yet this is what was done in Auckland.....and they want to do it to th whole country, too.
No thanks.
FM - very insightful post. The agenda of this national govt is transparent, but thanks to the hatchet job by Labour before them, people seem happy to let smiley John do what he wants, and lie out his face about it. Frankly I am very worried about NZ’s future, politically, economically & socially.
The blatant stealing of democracy in Auckland, the MMP referendum, and the Canterbury Council take over should have rung alarm bells so loud even the bluest supporter should be questioning it. But no there was hardly a whimper, and the media coverage in many respects was childish.
The reality is that the majority of voters simply do not care, and are in ignorant bliss, content with the tele, and some DIY. It is this attitude which allows governments to make changes which put a shiver up my spine. The SIS legislative changes coming are IMO tied to this discussion. The dumbing down of the electorate, the invasion of privacy and the stealing of democratic process to such a degree that it would make any fascist applaud.
This is NZ, and we need to somehow find a way to take it - or initially at least slow down the demise.
At risk of posting too often....I note the Terms of Reference appear to assume we will not have MMP any more:
"The size and number of electorates, including the method for calculating size."
No mention of the number of list MPs versus local MPs.....surely critical as part of the whole picture and any balance between being able to maintain proportionality and keep electorates small enough to be serviceable?
Absolutely, the electoral term should be extended to 4 years; it would be one of the most sensible and pragmatic things this country could do. The country actually voted on this question back in the late 1980's early 1990s from memory, but rather than voting for that change New Zealand’s sour socialists and their hippy dippy hand clapping flunkies on the left voted for MMP! And hasn't that proven to be a rip roaring success. And we wonder why New Zealand is such a poor country.
HELLO!
According to the UN, which produces a measure of contentment based on a series of factors such as life expectancy, environmental standards and literacy, the best place to live is Norway (population 4 million.
Small countries require small bureaucracies, so there is less waste. This, in turn, reduces the need for taxation, and stimulates enterprise. Because the population tends to be homogenous, laws are less likely to have unintended consequences, and decisions are made more closely to the people they affect.
Full story:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3679001/Successful_countries_think_small/
Norway is run by very sensible individuals, especially in relation to their policies on foreign investment. Norway, it seems, looks after number 1 first, and then considers the rest. Of course we couldn't have that in New Zealand, because looking after your own country is socialism, and goes against the free market...
The only real problem with MMP is the inordinately large number of party members that are allowed in on the strength of a single MP winning a constituency seat. So a party with 1% of the popular vote gets several MPs because of a single strong showing. This has applied to NZ1st, Greens, ACT at various times, and probably others.
The strength of MMP is demonstrated the extraordinarily good job the de facto Maori-Nats coalition is doing. However on the negative side we had some disastrous coalititions in the past involving that snake Winston Peters.
Oh and yes, 3 years is far too short. Any govt of the day is too concerned about re-election to actually do anything worthwhile. 4 years or even 5 would be better. Any more than that would be foolish.
Here's an idea, Make it illegal or any MP to make what is considered a "promise"
That way they must stick to logic, facts and evidence to back up ALL their claims of making things better. If they fail they take a hike or are fined a full years salary!
Now who likes that?
Do what the Italians do during WW2. Get only the 10 most capable to run the country. If no good performance is made, shoot the one with lowest KPI and pick another. That will keep the herd in order.
120 MP's for 4 million plus people = Madness.
Lee Kwan Yew could have run this country on his own and not get shot.
or maybe another variation of the theme....
http://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.html
-
Referendums will increase the willingness to compromise (otherwise a party defeated in parliament will call for a referendum).
This effect is not so strong, however, as we see from the fact that there are several non-mandatory referendums in Switzerland every year (and even some successful ones leaving the uncompromising majority and the goverment in the rain) despite the fact that every politician should know and "fear" them ... -
Referendums favour big coalitions:
Shared power motivates compromise, exclusion from power motivates obstructive referendums. -
Referendums increase stability:
As extreme laws will mercilessly be blocked by the electorate in referendums, parties are less inclined to radical changes in laws and voters are less inclined to call for fundamental changes in elections. There is no need to dismiss the government after a lost referendum, because the referendum solves the problem - preventing an extreme law - more efficiently and also more precisely: On the very same day, three new laws may be accepted and two others rejected.
When we voted MMP in, it was stated that there would be a further referendum in the future on whether to keep MMP or not. From a rather hazy memory, it was said that this 2nd referendum would be held after two terms? Still waiting for it. Unless it is binding on govt it is a complete waste of time.
I would like to see a 4/5year term. With 3 years I don't believe we see good govt.
Cities with populations of 4million run on less than 120 elected councillors so we should be able to run parliment on a lot less than 120 elected members.
Walter: I once employed a Norwegian GP in NZ on a 'working holiday'. They said that Norway has the highest rate of depression in the world, and alcohol is also a major issue - all tied to their long winter apparently.
That aside - I agree with your post :-)
Having spent many years travelling in my time, and meeting peoples from Norway & other scandy countries, from speaking with them I can confirm the following.
The governments are too scared to make poor decisions which will negatively impact their country, because and I quote "we are too proud".
Govts should be scared of the electorate and too proud to make detrimental decisions which hurt their own country. Nationalism is ok, it is not racist, as it has been portrayed by the globalists. A countries first obligation is to its people, that is those who are legally entitled to live in NZ, regardless of ethnic origin. When this is accepted and acted on then progress will be made. There are fierce opponents who do not want counties to function this way.
I don't see any evidence of fear or pride from our lot, so this alone for me explained much about the success of Scandy nations. Of course there is more to it than that, they have very stable & defined social structures, their financial system is not based on the defunct and failing Fractional Reserve System etc..
Sure they have depression issues, which are well known, they also provide services to deal with it. What in NZ do our servants provide for the suicide rates, teen pregnancy rates etc? Oh yeah that’s right in one case, they provide nothing, and the other they provide money. Brilliant bunch that run NZ aren’t they!
Having spent many years travelling in my time, and meeting peoples from Norway & other scandy countries regularly, from speaking with them I can confirm the following.
Their governments are too scared to make poor decisions which will negatively impact their country, because and I quote "we are too proud to fail our country".
Govts should be scared of the electorate and too proud to make detrimental decisions which hurt their own country. Nationalism is ok, it is not racist, as it has been portrayed by the globalists. A countries first obligation is to its people, that is those who are legally entitled to live in NZ, regardless of ethnic origin. When this is accepted and acted on then progress will be made. There are fierce opponents who do not want counties to function this way.
I don't see any evidence of fear or pride from our lot, so this alone for me explained much about the success of Scandy nations. Of course there is more to it than that, they have very stable & defined social structures, their financial system is not based on the defunct and failing Fractional Reserve System etc..
Sure they have depression issues, which are well known, they also provide services to deal with it. What in NZ do our servants provide for the suicide rates, teen pregnancy rates etc? Oh yeah that’s right in one case, they provide nothing, and the other they provide money. Brilliant bunch that run NZ aren’t they!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.