If it ain’t broke, don’t act

‘‘New Zealand is considered one of the best-run, most efficient democracies in the world.’’

David Seymour is considering another reality-TV show. Having displayed his ability with two left feet and one eye for a good profile-boosting campaign, the leader of the ACT party is looking at another opportunity. This one could be called Dancing with the Tsars. To be fair, we’re taking a little literary licence there. But stick with us.

Seymour and his party are keen on smaller government. He is working on a member’s bill that would reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 100, by abolishing Ma¯ ori seats and having fewer electorates. He also wants to limit the Executive to 20 and make list candidates stand in an electorate.

Seymour believes this would deliver smarter governance and better outcomes for New Zealanders. Fair enough – right now a good number of Kiwis will be tapping their own left feet to Seymour’s drum beat. Calling for fewer MPs has never hurt a politician’s career.

Good legislation does many things, but it is most effective when it either fixes a problem or opens up opportunities. Even better if it targets both. Seymour’s appears to do neither.

Any government – big or small – comes with some bureaucracy, and people are either supportive or not, depending on which end of it they are experiencing. Seymour believes the economy is being ‘‘strangled by red tape and bureaucracy’’.

But independent global observers disagree. New Zealand is regularly named in the top 10 of the World Economic Forum’s list of the most efficient governments – it was sixth of 144 countries in 2015, and 17th for competitiveness. The calculation is based on a number of factors, including wasteful spending, the burden of red tape on business, and the transparency of policy-making.

We’re surrounded by the usual European countries – Switzerland, Finland and Luxembourg – but interestingly the top nation is Qatar, with the United Arab Emirates just above us in fifth.

The ‘‘efficiencies’’ of the last two are derived from having fewer voices in an autocratic government, and a reputation for regular humanrights violations. OK, so it’s not quite Dancing with the Tsars, but you get the picture.

All of this means New Zealand is considered one of the best-run, most efficient democracies in the world.

Which begs the question: what is the problem Seymour wants to fix? It can’t be cost; a 1999 report into cutting the number of MPs from 120 to 99 calculated savings of barely $7 million. It would be more in 2018 currency, and if the number of Cabinet jobs were cut, but we are still talking about a small sum in the wider economic context.

Especially when you consider the possible wider cost, including the potential division caused by culling the Ma¯ ori seats (National leader Simon Bridges believes that is ‘‘more trouble than it’s worth’’) and the impact on some already large electorates.

Reducing them to 54 is unlikely to be noticed much in growing urban areas but it will be a distillation of democracy in less-populated electorates like West Coast-Tasman, CluthaSouthland and Taranaki-King Country. Even with the support of electorate-aligned list MPs.

Seymour may well succeed with this – cutting MP numbers certainly has a nice beat to it. But in reality, it’s an old tune played by a man looking for a new fiddle.