National's Jacqui Dean and Labour's Jenny Salesa, who both serve as assistant speakers, have called on their colleagues to consider making Parliament rise by 8pm on a Tuesday and Wednesday during sitting weeks.

The pair argue it will lead to a more family friendly Parliament, be more in line with modern workplace health and safety, and lead to better scrutiny of legislation.

Currently, Parliament sits from 2pm until 10pm on sitting Tuesdays and Wednesdays and from 2pm until 5pm on a Thursday. Dean and Salesa suggest keeping the same number of sitting hours in a week, with the time being made up elsewhere.

A joint letter from Dean and Salesa said finishing earlier would allow "members to spend more quality time with their families and by doing so allows a more diverse range of people to be able to undertake work as a member".

"In the past, finishing early would only benefit those with families in the Wellington region, but now with the widespread use of video calls, all members are now able to spend some quality time talking to their family at the end of the day," they said.

They say more "humane" sitting hours would allow for members to "carve out much needed work-life balance, whether for family time, constituent time or just time for themselves".

Dean told the Herald she and Salesa had decided to do it a couple of months ago.

She said Parliament was now "much more aware of welcoming families," than it was when she first became an MP in 2005, and the hours should reflect this.

Other suggestions to the review suggested changes to the composition of select committees, prompted by the historically large government caucus.

Act deputy leader Brooke van Velden's submission on behalf of her party proposed abolishing the position of Leader of the Opposition, which is held by the largest party outside of government.

"The voters who did not vote for the current National Party have their representation removed by the term Leader of the Opposition," she wrote.

Act also proposed changing select committee membership so it is proportional to the number of non-executive members (ministers). Currently select committee membership is proportional to party membership in the House.

By excluding ministers, the opposition would have a majority on many select committees, particularly in years when the governing parties did not win landslides like Labour and the Greens achieved in 2020.

Act leader David Seymour has previously suggested this idea and had written to the Business Committee about it. The Business Committee referred that letter to the Standing Orders Committee.

Seymour said that in the previous Parliament his suggestion would have meant a 57-33 majority in select committees. In the current Parliament, the proposal would have meant Labour and the Greens having a 47-45 majority on committees.

"In my experience, most MPs will privately admit that this change is desirable. The difficulty is finding an Executive that will agree to it," Seymour said in his letter.

He suggested the change would mean committees would have the power to propose real changes to legislation and that opposition MPs would "feel the duty to take their jobs much more seriously as submitters counted on them to make useful changes".

Seymour said Government MPs would have to work "much harder to defend the Government's legislation should they wish to do so".

Currently the number of questions parties get in Question Time is divided up this way, giving the opposition more questions than its representation in the House.

National MP Chris Penk, submitting in his own name, rather than that of his Party, also suggested changing the composition of select committees.

Penk wrote that the membership of select committees should be divided equally between government and opposition members.

He said this would "ensure that neither government nor opposition members alone could amend a Bill (or even recommend its proceeding or not proceeding)" without securing the agreement of at least one member from the other side.

"This would promote collaboration between SC members across political parties and, in doing so, encourage more discussion on the merits of the submissions on the legislative proposals. Where agreement could be reached on amendments to a Bill (and a recommendation as to whether the Bill should proceed), the SC's report would reflect that.

"Where such agreement could not be reached, on the other hand, the SC report would simply note that fact and parties' differing views could be included if desired".

Van Velden also proposed including in the review an idea which is current Act Party policy, cutting the number of sitting weeks.

She suggested cutting the number of sitting weeks from 30 a year to 23.

"This would reduce the number of flights taken by Members of Parliament, and carbon emissions, by around 25 per cent. It would also save taxpayer money and introduce better work-life balance for MPs and their families," she said.

She argued Parliament could make up the lost time by sitting for four days during a sitting week, rather than just three. (www.nzherald.co.nz)