A list MP's lament.

John Roughan’s column in Saturday’s Herald raised some interesting points about MMP. He refers to Phil Twyford missing out on becoming the Labour candidate for Mt Albert and uses this to illustrate his view that the way we elect list MPs should be radically changed.

 

When the country was debating the merits of shifting to MMP, one of the arguments I recall staunch opponents of the change like Peter Shirtcliffe espousing was that nobody would want to be an Electorate MP. They said for those encumbered by a geographic constituency the workload would be higher than those elected from the list. Why would you want more work? Electorates would suffer due to list MPs being seen as superior while the best talent opts for the more cushy life.

 

How wrong they were.

 

Today, not only are most list MPs required to open offices in electorates held by members from the ‘other side’ so to speak. They must compete with the incumbents in those seats with fewer resources. They must work much harder to get profile and be included in events, groups and activities that the local MP is automatically invited to participate in. In addition to this list MPs, often seen by their whips as unencumbered by a geographic community to represent, can often be expected to perform work around the country in ethnic communities they might be a part of or pick up the slack where others are unable to attend to things for whatever reason.

 

So as a list MP you are often expected to take on a local member, represent the party in a nationwide community and do work that nobody else has time to do – all with fewer resources than an electorate MP in terms of staff and office budget.

 

So much for the easy life.

 

Another accusation levelled at MMP by its opponents is that list MPs are unaccountable to the people. This one has always irritated me. If people want a say in how a party list is constructed, my answer is simple – join a party, participate in the process and have your say.

 

If they are unaccountable, why do list MPs and other candidates scramble to get an electorate seat, preferably a safe one? Because a safe seat makes you much harder to get rid of. As a number of Labour MPs discovered last year, trusting your future as an MP to the list process can be risky. The only real way an MP can lose a safe seat is to be de-selected by their own party.

 

List MPs are important. They should be important. They often represent ethnic and other constituencies they would be unable to service if they had a geographic constituency. I like the idea of a Minister or even a Prime Minister being a list MP so their electorate does not miss out on someone who can commit full time to the concerns of a local area.

 

The answer to the accountability problem should not be to make list MPs less accountable. Instead, electorate MPs in safe seats should be more accountable. Theirs is the job that is so important to make sure that the views of individuals and local communities are represented properly in our parliament. If they do a crap job, they should not expect to cruise along free of any threat to their job security. They should expect to be challenged for their place. But too often they are entrenched in seats in which any monkey in either a blue or red suit can rest easy.

Comments

[Jeremy]

Jon Johansson said to a class that I was in that he could not foresee a situation where the Minister of Finance would be an electorate MP again (at the time, Michael Cullen was the Minister, and Don Brash was the opposition spokesperson) because of workload issues.

I agree with the PM and Senior Ministers being list MPs would be better (esp given the Prime Minister is my local MP). However, there is a perception that list MP isn't a 'real' MP amongst the electorate, which will have to be overcome.

[Helen]

All i want is a list of MPS and what they do? for Citinship coursework !

[Dolan]

Helen,

Have a look here: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/

Each name has a link to what roles they hold.