|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Nick Clark | Senior Fellow | nick.clark@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Amidst a long list of recommendations to improve our electoral system, one sparked a particularly strong reaction – that Parliament be increased from 120 members to 170. It dominated media mentions. To say the public does not hold MPs in high esteem is a bit like saying they are mildly suspicious of foxes guarding henhouses. Readers may be wondering what I was thinking when I suggested we need more of them. There are some good reasons. New Zealand has a very small Parliament compared to most similarly sized developed countries. Norway, Ireland, Denmark and Finland all have populations of 5 to 6 million and all have between 169 and 200 MPs in their lower houses. This is no coincidence. There is a sweet spot when balancing transaction costs with representation. The ‘cube root law’ suggests an optimal parliament size is the cube root of a country’s population. In New Zealand’s case, that would be 170. This suggests that New Zealanders are currently seriously underrepresented. Our MPs must serve large and diverse electorates, both geographically and in terms of population. The average electorate now has 70,300 people compared to 51,800 at the first MMP election. Electorate MPs can struggle with the size of their electorates and the demands of their many constituents across multiple issues. A relatively small number of MPs also has consequences for scrutiny and accountability, especially when combined with our very large and powerful ‘Executive’ (28 ministers and two undersecretaries). MPs currently must sit on multiple committees as part-timers where they are overwhelmed by large and complex bills, huge volumes of submissions, and demands to scrutinise ministers and departments. More MPs should lighten the load and allow the fostering of deeper and more specialised knowledge. More MPs are also an important element in reducing overhang seats. There is no space here to explain, so please read the report or watch our webinar. The cost of Parliament would increase, but it could be offset by reducing and streamlining the Executive and rationalising the 81 portfolios and 43 often bloated departments. The quality of ministers could be improved if there were a bigger pool of MPs to choose from. The size of Parliament is one of many issues my report canvasses. It makes other important recommendations, including a four-year parliamentary term and tweaks to MMP to improve proportionality. Overall, the report seeks to improve fairness and efficiency. Having more MPs I believe is an important element. To learn more about Nick's research, read the full report, watch the webinar and listen to our podcast. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Benno Blaschke | Senior Fellow | benno.blaschke@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
The audience could not help but notice when Microsoft's Isuru Fernando joined later and, in a separate session, told them that New Zealand "punches above its weight." The audience responded with laughter. They had heard Oliver's warning just hours earlier. The contrast captured a broader national habit: New Zealanders prefer to believe they are ahead, even when the evidence suggests otherwise. At an informal dinner of technology executives, one chief executive offered another kind of reassurance. "New Zealand," he said, "is possibly in one of the best positions for AI. We missed the industrial and internet revolutions, so we're still grounded in agriculture, and the world will always need food." The remark drew polite nods. But it revealed something deeper: we often frame poor performance as an advantage. While one of our more competitive export sectors, agriculture, is already automated and employs fewer people than ever, it is not a highly productive sector by global standards. It will not lift us to the frontier. New Zealand has early adopters experimenting with AI tools. Usage rates are high among those who try them. But adoption is not the same as adaptation. Adoption means using new tools. Adaptation means reorganising workflows, retraining staff, upgrading data systems, and making complementary investments that let AI improve how work gets done. It means integrating AI into core operations, not just running pilots. Any momentum we build in early adoption of AI will run up against cultural caution. Even if some tech-forward early adopters are pushing the frontier, wider uptake of AI and turning that into productivity gains will prove harder. Treasury, MBIE, and the former Productivity Commission all agree: our framework conditions are weak. Low capital intensity, uneven management capability, thin digital infrastructure, limited competition in domestic markets, poor technology diffusion, and weak research-industry collaboration mean early experiments seldom mature into system-level gains. We are quick to start, but slow to adapt. If we treat our distance from disruption as a strategy, we will stay distant from growth. The world's next productivity wave is forming. Our place in it depends on whether we take the necessary steps, encompassing capital, capability, competition, and confidence. Otherwise, the only thing we'll keep punching is the same old line about punching above our weight. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
“We have to add at least one ice cube,” the bartender said, perfectly serious. “Otherwise, it is a shot. It is the new internal rule.” Oh my goodness: a shot! That terrifying 30ml of spirits apparently causing havoc in airline lounges worldwide. That single ice cube – not two, which might imply you actually wanted ice, but exactly one – is bureaucratic genius. It melts in seconds. It achieves nothing except a faintly watered whisky and the knowledge that somewhere a risk manager is sleeping peacefully. I can imagine the meeting where this was decided. The solemn discussions about responsibility. And the consensus that one ice cube would make all the difference between civilised drinking and chaos. Yet walk across Wellington airport to the Qantas lounge, and you will find passengers pouring their own spirits. It is a different world over there. No supervision. No mandatory ice. And still, Qantas’ passengers somehow manage not to riot on their flights to Sydney. When the flag carrier of Australia, that continent-sized nanny state, treats its passengers with more respect than we do, we know we have crossed a line. This fits perfectly with New Zealand’s other gifts to global safety. We gave the world bungy jumping, with safety briefings. We pioneered jet boats, where everyone gets a life jacket. We even invented zorbing – wrapped in plastic, naturally. And now we have fixed the whisky problem, one cube at a time. In a way, it was classic New Zealand: doing something that looks like doing something while achieving nothing. Now, I would readily concede that this incident does not quite amount to a humanitarian crisis. And Air New Zealand can, of course, serve whisky any way it pleases. But I am equally free to find this kind of policy infantilising. We have become a nation of adults being treated like children who cannot be trusted with our own affairs. Somewhere in Air New Zealand’s head office, someone must be genuinely proud of this policy. They have protected us from ourselves. The whisky was still drinkable once the ice melted, which it did just as I returned to my seat. Mission accomplished, for the airline’s health and safety manager. As for myself, I was so annoyed, I felt like another whisky. I just did not want it with ice. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |