Chapman, RobertMcLeay, E. M.(Elizabeth M.)2020-07-082020-07-081978http://hdl.handle.net/2292/52044Full text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only.This study examines the composition of the New Zealand House of Representatives in the period from 1935 until 1975 and the selection and composition of the cabinets during that time. It investigates how the two major political parties, the National Party and the Labour Party, have determined the characteristics of the parliamentarians through their selection of candidates and how each of these parties have chosen their cabinets. It is concerned with how the different procedures of cabinet selection of the Labour and National parties affect the cabinet selection process, how the MPs themselves view this process and how the New Zealand political structure guides and constrains the choice of the top elected political leadership. The aggregate analysis of the social and political backgrounds and careers of the MPs was aided by computer and included every MP and cabinet minister within the period. The other major source of data was gained from a series of 'in-depth' interviews with the parliamentarians. In addition, the newspapers for the period under examination were used for supplementary information and comment. The New Zealand legislature was compared with the national legislatures of other countries, especially the United States, Great Britain and Australia. The socio-economic backgrounds of the MPs and ministers differ between the parties, each being biased towards its own electoral bases. The House and the cabinets produce!! by the Labour and National parties are, however, remarkably representative of the social distinctions within New Zealand society. In terms of the degree of pre-parliamentary political experience of the New Zealand MPs the two parliamentary parties have come to be similar. Both sets of members have extensive political experience in their own parties, in interest groups and in local government. The parties demonstrate some difference in their patterns of parliamentary turnover, those in National demonstrating a greater willingness to leave voluntarily than those in Labour. The cabinets in New Zealand exhibit little coherence in their structures. Seniority is the guiding principle of cabinet order. Geographical and, to a lesser extent, sectional representativeness in the cabinets are important criteria in cabinet construction. The parliamentary socialisation experienced by the MPs of both parties means that their attitudes towards what is important in the cabinet selection process are similar. However, the two different methods of cabinet selection - in Labour the caucus elects and in National the prime minister selects symbolise and maintain different sets of expectations about the relative roles of prime minister and parliamentary party in the Labour and National caucuses. The small, unicameral House of Representatives reinforces the cohesiveness and loyalty of the parliamentary parties and, moreover, imposes very strict limitations upon the available choice for cabinet. This means that cabinet places, besides going disproportionately to those in the safe parliamentary seats, also go to those with the seniority within the Parliament. .The study shows how the cabinet form of government produces a tension between representativeness and expertise in the legislature, and how the small size New Zealand House of Representatives makes this tension particularly acute.Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.Restricted Item. Full text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only.https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htmThesisCopyright: The authorQ112118641