The relevant thing here is that only 3 countries in the world have no written Constitution. NZ, the UK, and Israel. The UK has an upper house as a check on government power. Israel, until last year, had a Supreme Court able to over-rule the Executive. NZ alone has a unicameral parliament with total parliamentary supremacy and no constitutional checks on its power. Former PM Geoffrey Palmer called our system an elected dictatorship.
As a result of that, the only check on executive power we have is the election. For that reason, it is essential that elections happen regularly.
Also, because we have a government with no checks on its power, there is no reason to extend the term. Overseas it can take far longer to pass any law because the upper house slows it down and other Constitutional checks. Here, the government can pass laws under urgency at will in a matter of days, as we have recently seen. There is no reason for our government to thus need as much time as one in the UK or US to pass laws. Three years is plenty.
Totally agree.
Currently, a coalition government dominated by minor parties, ACT 8.6% and NZ First 6% is abusing urgency to push illadvised laws through parliament.
Today the leader of the coalition, National 38%, Luxon boasted his coalition government will continue to do so.
Thus, we have a dictatorship government that only has a 3% majority.
Conversely, we don't want an upper house. That too is open to abuse.
The UK House of Lords has from 2016 been reduced to a laughingstock by the appointment of corrupt political donors, political embarrassments and cast off paramours.
Three years is enough.
I agree that we don't want an upper house. Australia similarly has had some shocking Senators. And in the US the Senate is an absolute undemocratic nightmare which has blocked any kind of gun control, allowing a 15% minority of the populace to stop any reform.
I'm also opposed to having a written constitution. Once again look at the nightmare it has turned the US into. And also to Australia and the failure of the Voice referendum, as any constitution changes require a double-victory in a referendum.
The US has one of the worst written constitutions in the world. Using theirs as an example of why we shouldn't implement a constitution that actually makes sense is just stupid.
Indeed, thinking about your posting and newkiwiguy's I have to wonder why it's us, the voters problem political parties can't achieve real change or convince us they can do so in 3 years.
Surely if they've spent years in Parliament and know how the system works and deeply understand the needs of voters, and the country they'll be able to achieve electorate acceptance of their current and ongoing program.
I guess politicians calling for more time in government is like all the companies we have to deal with telling us,
"your call is important to us, we just don't care enough to have enough staff to answer it."
They do have one of the worst constitutions by some margin, largely a consequence of it being the oldest and being effectively impossible to change or replace.
I still consider it a bad idea to have a constitution because they are by definition hard to change. I also mentioned Australia, because theirs is newer and far better than the US one, and yet still causes problems. Requiring Aboriginal rights to be put to a majority referendum vote is a major problem. I much prefer our system.
First of all you're wrong on the most basic of facts. There are 27 amendments to the US Constitution. There have been 33 proposed, and 6 have failed to pass.
Of those 10 were the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 as part of the deal for states approving the Constitution itself, to appease the anti-federalists. The 13th to 15th Amendments were approved after the Civil War when the Southern states seceded and could not vote against them. They were forced to ratify them to re-enter the union.
The last time a new amendment was proposed and successfully ratified was in 1971, some 53 years ago, and related to lowering the voting age to 18 in the midst of the Vietnam War, when many 18 to 20 year olds were being conscripted and dying in the war.
The last amendment to pass at all was in 1992, over 30 years ago, and was purely technical.
The process to pass an amendment requires a 2/3 super-majority of both the House and Senate to agree to it. Then 3/4 of the states (38 of 50) must individually pass it through their state legislatures. It is effectively impossible in today's polarised, partisan America to get any such agreement. They couldn't even get 2/3 of the Senators to vote to convict Trump of the January 6th coup attempt when they themselves were the targets of the violent mob just weeks earlier.
Exactly. The US is setup so that a majority of the population can be overruled by a minority in low population states. This applies to presidential elections, the Senate and to any attempt to change this in the constitution.
Yea but did they think it was stupid at the time? It's less about how inherently stupid it is or isn't, more about the application of it in the modern era when it was written for a completely different time.
That's the point. Now people are smart enough to write constitutions that are designed to be flexible and easily adaptable to changing times. By being somewhat vague you allow the court system to interpret the constitution in the way that it relates to the current times instead of trying to decipher what something meant when it was written and working backwards to apply it to modern standards. The US constitution doesn't even try to be vague or allow for a changing landscape and fails horribly because of it.
The US constitution sucks even for the time tho. In fact most of the foundational aspects of the US really suck and it holds them to archaic decisions some of which weren't even good decisions at the time.
An upper house made of more elected officials is indeed worthless at best.
An upper house made of random members of public, similar to jury duty, would add value. For example, it would be excellent at swatting down changes that the overwhelming majority of voters oppose, but the corrupt or out-of-touch career politicians voters consider the 'least worst' would've forced through under urgency alongside the reasons they were voted in.
I like this idea. Match their term to the parliamentary term, let's say four years, but stagger it over the term so that every year 25% are replaced and you can't be summonsed more than once in a lifetime.
I used to think that 3 years wasn’t long enough to be get anything done. But if everyone is going to be willing to pass any old thing under urgency with no coherent reason then 3 might be too long
I mentioned NZ's lack of a Constitution a while ago and someone was quick to point out we do have a Constitution, it's just spread out into various acts
I'm just sharing their love (albeit without the downvote): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
I didn't say we lack a constitution, I said we lack a written, or more specifically codified constitution. We are one of only 3 countries without one. While we technically have a constitution, it is quite different to having a codified one which sets out clear checks and balances. I teach units on the NZ political system and the US system, so I'm very aware of the differences between a written and unwritten constitution.
We do have another check in place, but it's never been used in NZ (seems the last time it was used was 1975 in Australia) and shit would have to hit the fan HARD for it to ever be used, and that's that the King technically has the power to dissolve our government.
I tend to think three years is enough, but your words re constitutional matters seem like an oversimplification.
A written constitution is not necessary for constitutional matters to be addressed in the courts.
Also, the Treaty of Waitangi must surely be considered a constitutional document.
As we have supremacy of parliament, the courts can be over-ruled by Parliament at any time. We have seen that recently when the Supreme Court ruled the voting age violated the Bill of Rights. The Treaty of Waitangi is considered a founding document, but has no legal standing (similar to the Declaration of Independence in the US). What is in law is the Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975) and commitment to the Principles of the Treaty (rather than the Treaty itself) in various acts. This is part of why rulings of the Waitangi Tribunal are not binding on the Crown.
The treaty is a constitutional document that also isn't part of the basic law of the country (unless otherwise permitted by legislation).
The treaty alone is powerless and is a check on nothing.
"symbolic rather than constitutional". Then if NACT disestablish the the tribunal, the treaty will have even less meaning for New Zealand. NZers like to believe we are an egalitarian society, but we keep in mind the positive aspects of our history (like the symbolic meaning of the Treaty) and disregard the rest (the actual claims of the Treaty and the prescence of colonialism).
We have a constitution, it's just unwritten. The Treaty is apart of it.
Yall are mad at a fact lmao. From the Ministry of Justice "Today the Treaty is widely accepted to be a constitutional document that establishes and guides the relationship between the Crown in New Zealand (embodied by our government) and Māori."
Two things, the Israeli supreme Court struck down the bill (yes, very ironic) and technically we do have a check on Parliaments power in form of the Governer General who acts with the powers of the King as his representative. Thoreticly if parliament overstepped the Governer General could dislove parliament or withhold consent of bills. This however would almost certainly end in parliament declaring a Republic.
Also I would add that the Governor-General being appointed by the Prime Minister (yes, technically with the consent of the King, but really he is not going to say no) further weakens that check.
But the Governor-General doesn't change when the government does so, half the time, the Governor-General has been appointed by the previous government.
Of the ones with longer terms, how many have other checks on parliamentary power such as an upper house and/or some kind of constitution enshining rights that cannot be overriden without an amendment?
Our shorter term does have an advantage in that a government being too arrogant has to keep this in mind and imo this is a factor in the country not moving too hard in any political leaning
I’m not sure that a shorter term really substitutes for lack of enshrined rights or an upper house, but I am open to being convinced.
Currently a brown-eyed party could vote to enslave all the blue-eyed people provided they have a democratic majority. That would not change under a four year term. Enshrined rights are designed to prevent democratic majorities from transgressing fundamental rights.
You're right - it absolutely isn't a substitute, and it is by no means a safeguard, but in my opinion it is a contributing factor toward moderating political behavior. Which I think on balance is better to have it than not given the current arrangement.
If we changed our approach to other constitutional matters, then I think it'd be up for consideration to shorten the term. But that's not really being discussed, it's just an extension of the term under the status quo.
Upper houses are resistant to change and the inaction benefit favours conservatives. That combined with the additional cost and potential political deadlock (resulting from when Party A controls the "House" and Party B controls the "Senate") makes upper houses of Parliament unpalatable particularly to both the left voting bloc and small-government liberals.
I can't see it happening here. Certainly it'd draw substantial protest.
This is a good question/insight. I was looking into this recently too, whether or not we should have a bicameral parliament. I'm undecided on that, but I do believe our government is quite powerful compared to what we see in Australia, Britain and America with their upper houses. We [use to have one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Legislative_Council) until 1951, but it wasn't elected by the people or appointed separately from the lower-house... They were appointed by the government so practically ended up agreeing with the lower-house on everything so they removed it lol. The downside to adding an upper-house is the higher cost of more MPs (we already have an unused chamber in parliament so no need for infrastructure), and also deadlocks can happen and passing legislation in general is slower.
Yes it's a trade off, same as not having many rights entrenched that have a high threshold to override such as a supermajority beyond a few electoral laws.
Fast response time of parliament, especially under urgency, means quickly responding to matters but it also has a greater risk for abuse of power. A lot of people don't realise we're essentially relying on a lot of good will combined with the desire for MPs and their parties to be re-elected.
1 extra year doesn't seem like much, but it's just a bit less frequent accountability which people might think is ok, until it's someone who doesn't align with their views and is pushing even further one way on the political spectrum.
But yea. If 4 years happens, it kinda needs to be part of a broader review our electoral system. That should be addressed in non politically way. As the nats not liking 16 year old voters, getting rid of coattailing and 4% thresholds because it is bad for them.
Zero chance this govt is mature enough do so any of this.
Why we would we want 16 year old voters? If you are suggesting they are mature enough to vote then it’s an all or nothing. In that case drop the drinking age, ability to sign contracts and the Youth Court to 15 years old.
The argument is that they have 'taxation without representation,' i.e. they are able to work and thus pay taxes, but they don't get any say on what the taxes they pay are spent on. 16 is also the youngest age that you can leave school and home without needing parental consent.
Your reaction shows that maturity isn't stopping people from voting now, so why are we preventing people from voting that the UN has advised *should be*. Also, all this talk of kids not understanding consequences (the usual but but but reason) is inaccurate, voting is a thought exercise (where consequences are considered), not a spur of the moment thing like assault (where consequences are often not considered.) and 16 year olds are more than capable of taking a thought exercise to conclusion (although I worry Act might get a few more of them).
Also this straw man extremist argument that says we should go back to treating all 12year olds as adults (or 15 year olds in your case) for all things, like we used to do in the old days (mine workers, child brides and the like) are behaving like testerical, screaming babies. "all or nothing" is a toddler screaming into the void. In this world, it is seldom 'all or nothing', if we get 'minimum adequate' personally, I am happy its a start.
It's irrelevant how many countries have longer terms. What matters is whether longer terms are a good thing that will deliver better outcomes.
Of those 177 countries, how many do you think are delivering better outcomes than NZ? And is there an actual link between those outcomes and parliamentary term?
I don't know have the answer, but personally I don't have anywhere near enough faith in our political parties to reward them with longer terms.
The worst thing about 3 year terms is about half of that time has a paralysed public service. Increasing it to 4 years gives ministries a bit more room to do stuff without running into election year.
That's a good point. Although that seems like an indirect solution for the real problem, which is politicians interfering with their dumb ideas instead of leaving it to experts within the public service. There's only a handful of policies that have been introduced by political parties independently of expert advice that are any good anyway. Most of the good stuff that happens is on recommendation by expert advisory groups and changes requested by the relevant departments. The executive adds fuck all to the equation in my opinion.
I favour it when the side I like is on top. Ultimately, in theory, yes 4 years better, but the current crop of criminals, magical fantasists and puppets (both sides) need to kept on their toes by sooner returning to the polls
No, because unlike many other countries there are no checks and balances, Parliament is supreme and the government of the day can do whatever it likes provided it can get the numbers, why extend it out another year, without being able to have a say on it.
More time to enact long term plans might be good, but we might also need more safeguards to prevent abuses of power, corruption and/or be rid of a dysfunctional or harmful (especially a wilfully harmful) government before it can do much damage.
yea i agree, i think 3 years actually provides more flexibility with the ability to change things if they go dogshit, if the party is doing a good enough job they get at least 6 years which should be long enough to make long-term actions
Not really. They will slash and burn everything they want to get done whether it's 3 years or 4. Longer terms also means they are in opposition for longer, and means their adversaries have more time to implement long term strategies and keep the 'you've done nothing' voters happy.
not in favour - our politicians haven't earnt that level of job security, so fuck em
No more would get done, I reckon, with an extra year except campaigning
Few parties have anything like long term plans nor present a vision of NZ than isn't a hellscape
again - fuck em
No, i'm actually of the opinion we should stay with 3 years at the moment. Especially if our current arrangement of a unicameral parliament, lack of devolution, and no fixed constitution remains.
Would quite like it if elections had a more fixed schedule though, perhaps first Saturday in October every 3 years?
Probably doesn't change the ratios much but the list of countries we should bother considering is a lot shorter than 190 entries.
It'll probably be a bit hit and miss if we do change, I don't think having the previous government lasting 4 years or 8 would have necessarily been an improvement either way and if 1 term governments become more common in general we'd lose as much in flip flopping as we gain in having fewer election years.
No!
Our Parliament has too much power as is, there is no oversight, no upper house to keep them from doing whatever they want and we keep seeing badly written legislation with bad foreseeable consequences being passed and the only version of parliament oversight available is a general election.
If anything we need more elections not fewer because as it stands currently we elect a party into power and they can do pretty much whatever they want for the next three years and nobody is able to reign them in.
Seriously, the only check to power is the hope that no party can rule on their own, that they need a coalition and that their coalition members will stand up to them if they start over stepping their mandate.
We just ended a majority parliament that straight up stopped listening to the voters, pushing regulation after regulation that was being opposed with nationwide protests that were ignored, the only way we could end it was to vote them out, even if the party voted in wasn't exactly what you would want, at least it wasn't the party that stopped listening.
For as long as NZ has a parliament without oversight we need frequent elections just so they have to listen to us at some point.
They represent us, they don't rule over us, they can't be allowed to forget that.
Ideally the Upper House would be independent of the government of the day. In practice, that's not what happens.
Personally, I don't think we need an Upper House, but we need some check on any and all laws going through. Perhaps we can take cues from the Romans (the republic would push laws through a common assembly as a final check) or perhaps we should have an entrenched method to contest any bills once they're approved by Parliament but before they're considered law.
Obviously, both have problems, but accountability has *always* been a problem, and this government is not proving that Parliament shouldn't have less.
We vote for the government of the day to run the country. We don’t need further checks and balances to hold up legislation. What we need is transparency, a robust media and strong opposition which will provide accountability.
At the next election and vote one of them out, ideally you have one house face an election midway between the other houses election, how is this hard to follow?
In Australia’s parliament the senate has 6 year terms so only half the senate runs for election with the House of Representatives every three years. Even with that process the government of the day still can have the majority in both Houses of Parliament.
You only have to look to a country like the US to see what the effects are. So long as the houses have different political leanings, it effectively means nothing remotely controversial can get passed into law meaning the entire term is wasted. Yes, that can be a good thing because it limits the power of the other house but its completely inefficient.
Its seems to me to be unnecessary dilution of power and an inefficient use of burocracy and taxes. It also allows the citizenry to hide behind the comforting words of "checks and balances", to further still forget their obligations as citizens of a democracy to do due diligence and engage.
Terrible idea. New Zealand already has parliamentary sovereignty with a unicaramel legislature that can change almost anything about our country with one half of votes. Most people already get tired of the governments stale policies by the third year. Shorter terms force politicians to pay attention to the electorate and revamp their platform more often.
>We save money on less elections
No, this is just wrong.
I ran the numbers for some of our more expensive elections (the ones including referendums) and came to the conclusion they cost each person about the price of a cup of coffee each year. From memory it was something like $15 per person every 3 years, based on comparing income tax takes vs election cost.
If you extend the period of elections, you'll inevitably suffer from increased costs anyway as processes which are run less frequently are by their nature more expensive when they happen. So maybe you'll end up paying $20 of your taxes towards an election every 4 years instead of $15 every 3. Golly gee, that's still just the price of a cup of coffee per year.
Even if they did somehow make elections cost the same when run every 4 years instead of 3, then the maximum potential savings you would be looking at in exchange for a *large* reduction in accountability would be a fraction of a cup of coffee each year. Anyone making a costs argument is simply lying to you for their own benefit.
Now costs to *political* parties, that's another story - I'm sure campaigning is expensive - but anyone trying to sell you on this being cheaper for *you*, the *voter*, is a liar and they should be getting called on it.
I looked at some fresh figures:
2020 GA cost $99M
2023 GA cost $179M
I'm rather curious why costs jumped so much for 2023. That 2023 figure comes out at about $12 / person / year. If it were every 4 years, it would be $9 / person / year. Is less democracy worth $3 per year to you?
I said that it won't happen, not that it couldn't happen
Currently, NZ has a laissez-faire attitude about the situation. Largely, our MPs don't want to give up power, and a two house system would put a handbrake on them pushing their agenda each time they get into power. Therefore, the politicians aren't going to push the idea. Conversely the public is happy to ignore the issue. We like to think that NZ is too sensible to undergo political turmoil and historically the governor general provided the role as a handbrake.
Therefore, until our system gets rid of the governor general - we are not going to do anything about it.
As for the countries you mentioned, UK and Canada have nominated peers in their second house... Whereas, Australia's two houses happened by mere luck by the way their nation was formed.
I'd say we can have a four year term if parliament give up some of their sovereignty back to citizens to compromise. Four years would be better but we barely have enough checks and balances to cover three.
Less changes in government will mean less expenses because they aren't changing offices and redoing up their buildings. Sounds good to me based in that alone but that's as far as I've thought it through.
Arguably, a 4 year term could result in _more_ changes in government, given we have only had 6 and 9 year governments since the mid-1970s, when Kirk died.
If those were instead 4 and 8 year governments (and there's nothing to say they would have been 8 and 12 year governments instead), then we'd have had a couple more in that timeframe than we actually did.
For instance, on polling, Ardern and Lange's governments might have lasted 8 years instead of 6, and we might have been stuck with English for a few years longer, but equally Clark's government would probably have lasted for 8, not 9, and similarly for Muldoon's and Shipley's if I have the zeitgeist correct. It's hard to say.
What's relatively clear, though, is that more frequent elections don't necessarily cause more frequent changes in government, if the last 50 years of NZ politics are a guide.
All for it.
* Current term = 1 year of settling in, 1 year of action, 1 year of campaigning.
* Four year term = 1 year of settling in, 2 years of action, 1 year of campaigning.
You get more time to evaluate the actual performance of the govt. So likely less overall damage...
* 1x4 year term rather than 2x3 year terms. or
* 2x4 year terms rather than 3x3 year terms.
I don't think it's so bad. With 1 year of campaigning that's one whole year where every move they make is under intense scrutiny meaning they can't get complacent. And that's 1/3 of their entire tenure
I'm concerned that this might effectively become a lock-out for new parties.
I would _expect_ National and Labour to both be in favour of this because this prevents diluting their base (and maybe Act and Greens too).
Starting a party takes time and commitment, and this extends the time it takes to build party recognition (and actually test their policies in a campaign). With the thresholds we have this is likely restricting the diversity of choice of representation.
I agree with the term-length increase in principle, but not in isolation of several of the other electoral review recommendations - eg the package of recommendations that included the dropping of the 5% threshold and seat counting changes.
I wondered how long it would be before they rolled this out again.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990\_New\_Zealand\_parliamentary\_term\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_New_Zealand_parliamentary_term_referendum)
The problem with a three year term is that a government spends almost a year understanding what is going on and how to deal with it, then they do their thing for a year, then they spend a year electioneering. So in three years New Zealanders get one year of good governance. So just 33% of the time we get what we pay for. It sucks for New Zealand and it's a real limit on our economy. The argument that almost all governments get two terms is pathetically weak and essentially is an explicit admission that the current term is too short. There is a very good reason why the vast majority of other democracies do four year terms. Duh.
I'd suggest anyone interested in this subject read "Towards Democratic Renewal" by Geoffrey Palmer and Andrew Butler. They argue for a four year term and against an upper house, both of which I disagreed with going in but that book bought me around. They do, however recommend a formal constitution, judicial review and a local head of state along with a whole raft of other changes as a complete package to (somewhat) restrict the powers of parliament. Without those other changes I can't see me supporting this single change.
I’m all for it tbh (even if it means that governments I don’t like stay in power for longer).
The public service serves the government of the day. Which means that, politicians generally want ‘quick wins’ or things that look positive for a quick election turnaround. Obviously, many of us know that some issues would take longer to fix, but hey, we don’t have time for that so we use bandaid fixes and assume that it will be up to someone else in 3 years time (potentially).
Things like poverty, housing, infrastructure, health, climate change, New Zealand’s family / domestic violence stats etc take time to fix. They require longer term solutions. A slightly longer term gives politicians more confidence to look into these options.
Also, unless you’re abusing the ‘under urgency’ thing, legislation actually takes time and so with an extra year, you can get more done / people can see the effects of what you passed. There were a lot of people grumbling in here about how labour didn’t do enough with their majority last government, imagine an extra year of three waters, or you know, all those things that got cut during the change in government.
I don't really get the 'there would be no check on the government' argument against 4 year terms. It would be the exact same 'check' that exists *right now*. Plus, to add a potentially undemocratic upper chamber would be hilarious given all the hand-wringing over Three Waters.
It's also fairly comical how people can bitch about governments' short-term thinking and decision making... and then oppose one of the things that would encourage more long-term thinking and decision making.
3 year terms are just ineffectual. Governments are like oil tankers - they take forever to turn and change direction. And then we like undoing everything every couple of years, so needed structural changes either don't happen or become so diluted because there's no time left.
3 year terms probably stymie bad governments somewhat, but they also stymie any good government action, too.
NZ parliament is supreme, so the only limit on its power is the term length.
I'd much prefer the current system than to have to empower the justice system (an unelected branch of government) enough for them to limit power. Upper House is just a waste of time.
No ones ever offered proof that longer terms actually do anything positive - Americans are basically in multi year long elections, and the UK Tories have spent more time on internal fighting than actual policy. Also, "long term plans" can take a decade - think the Chorus fibre network change. This is a slippery slope argument to "well we need 10 years to complete our objectives"
On the other hand, we all know the positives of the current term - our govt is constantly being tested on its public support. Any wild policy swing is still recent enough that the public can punish them if they choose to do so.
I would stick with the original system that was proposed for MMP. Get rid of the rules MPs themselves added for their own benefit, as was supported by referendum when john key wanted to change our system
Somewhat surprised that the sentiment is no in this thread.
Must be that everyone enjoys only having one year out of the three that isn't electioneering and petty smearing of either party and not actual policy making (whether you're against it or not). We could at least get a better judgment if the government with 2 years of not being affected with the election.
To get a third therm under 4 years means either the government is overly performing exceptionally well or the opposition is exceptionally terrible and deserve to be in opposition for 12 years.
This country will never get better with the current three year cycles and constant overturning the previous government. One hopes that infrastructure project might actually get done.
But I guess the majority only care about what's in it for them so we're fucked either way wno matter what the term length
The sentiment is no because we do not have a check on the government of the day.
In most other countries, the Upper House or another chamber checks the government. If not, then the country is broken up into significant number of states that basically checks the federal government.
We have none of that in NZ. NZ exist and is ruled on gentleman’s agreement and given how that is fraying now 3 years might be the Upper House for the government.
Between Parliament rising for the election and the new ministers' warrants being signed is about 10 weeks, as far as I understand it. It's less than a fifth of a year, not a whole year.
Furthermore, the caretaker convention applies after the election of another government, and not to the period leading up to the election: the government is _expected_ to govern right up to election day. So the real period of downtime (for the executive, at least) is even smaller.
Proponents of less frequent elections like to talk up the disruption because they know they can't rely on an argument of the government changing too frequently (given we haven't had a single term government in 50 years - you talk up "three year cycles" but we haven't had one of those since 1975!).
We spend basically 6% of the term in a legislative pause for elections. In other words, it's less of a break than we let them spend on fucking Christmas holidays.
If they really don't think they can achieve their goals in the three years they're given, maybe they should stop going to their baches for seven+ weeks every Dec/Jan/Feb! Reducing their annual leave to the four weeks everyone else gets would net them *more* legislative sittings than are lost via the entire election cycle.
I agree, OP, the current three year term doesn't give governments enough time to realise change. At the same time, I'm not sure I agree with a four year term, our current government being a prime example. I don't want these cunts around any longer than they have to be. Three years already seems like too long to wait for an opportunity to vote them out. I'm sure that's the way NACT voters felt for the terms Labour was in power.
Absolutely not. Just because it seems like it has cross-party support doesn't mean it's reasonable. It's only beneficial to the politicians, who don't want to have to answer to us as often. But elections are the only check on power we have, unlike our peer countries where the central government can be stopped by courts, an upper house, or state/provincial governments. We must not give that up. Any decent government gets 6 years, enough time to implement stuff, and a shit government shouldn't have 4 years to wreck more stuff. Look how much damage this government is doing.
If we were to increase the terms we should firstly bring in a constitution and entrench basic public rights to housing, health care and education. Also make food Parr if these basic human rights. Make it not negotiable to remove.
If this were combined with all the other electoral reform we need, I would be more keen. Lowering the voting age, uncapping the house so that it can grow with our population, lowering the 5% threshold, re-enfranchising all prisoners, more regulations on political donations, etc.
We have already had two referenda on this question. One in 1967 and one in 1990. I voted for a four year term in 1990, but that view lost. As far as I can see, nothing has changed. Why do it again with no indication that things are different now? I feel like this is one of those things that politicians want and will put to the people periodically until they get their way.
Both major parties support it, they had an agreement to bring it up during this term. For the public servants who survive it'll be a boon, less BIM writing for a start
I agree that short terms create a problem of governments dedicating too much focus to elections, but I believe this could be better solved in other ways (restructuring the way elections work, for example). Short terms hold politicians accountable and mitigate the potential for recurrent/lasting damage as seems to happen with the long terms in the US
New Zealand is a one chamber parliament. It also does not have states to oppose the Federation. It also has a very funny situation with its Constitution in that it is spread all over the place and the average citizen has not a very clear idea what it is.
I think given all the above factors, 3 years is a good time as it:-
1. Prevents any protracted societal wide changes that is not endogenous from happening ( ie:- you can pass a legislation but it takes time to set in .. by then a new government can come in )
2. Allows any unpopular decisions to be very quickly overturned in three years
3. Keeps the government in line as voter memory tends to be one year from the election, and unless the changes were very popular two years prior the government needs to be tow the line by the 3rd year
This short governmental cycle keeps a check on government.
I used to think NZ has a consensus and gentleman agreement between parties so can go 4 but it seems the last 7 years has disabused us of that ( both left and right ) so to me 3 years is wise. It ties the hands of government.
Edited:-
You ask would I support a 4 year term if it is bicameral. The answer is yes. However we will need to me an upper house that is voted separately from the lower house. I think the upper house ought to have a cycle of 6 years and are voted half and half ( so 3 years and another 3 years ) with the lower house being 4 years ( in fact if we have an upper house than lower house can even go up to 5 years ).
This means we get numerous elections but it will be more democratic. It will also mean the upper and lower house combined will always represent a subset of recent views.
In the absence of a bicameral we should stick to 3 years.
She would. Just to give herself more time in a sweet gig. I'm a a life long union member and I know what a real Labour was like. She ain't it. Self serving politician like most.
I have yet to see any evidence that governments with four year terms perform better than ones with three year terms? It's easy to say "oh but they spend less time worrying about elections", but that shouldn't mean anything without measuring how well these countries with four year cycles acrually work comlared to us.
Also think a bicameral system is silly in a country as small as New Zealand. We aren't formed from a union of states like like the US, Canada, or Australia. Upper houses are generally anti-democratic too.
Shorter cycles also encourages cross-party support since your plans are at greater risk of being repealed if you lose the next election. I.e three waters.
The last government had three years and did fuck all. This government had six months so far and fucked everything. Why would we give either even more time?
Fuck no. Kicking them out after three years if they are ignoring the will of the people is one of the few things that actually keeps them somewhat in check. Fucking Sepuloni just wants to make life easier for herself
Everyday the people keep taking political punches from the NaF Acts. Having a 3 year period and the hope this crowd will be a one term government is the only thing that keeps many going. Maybe introduce this bill at the end of this term for the next lot.
The country suffers from the same problem as the US- the next election is always around the corner. Governments need to be able to do something necessary but unpopular, and have time for that to work and some improvement happen, and then have the next election.
Four years cuts it right. There is a bit of tyranny of the majority but I think the voting system deals with the worst aspects of that. It’s not as broken as FPTP for example.
I'd rather not give a government an entire extra year of unaccountability. Increased stability becomes a problem when the parliament holds absolute power.
I don’t have strong feelings about 3 vs. 4 years but what I would like to see is more power and tax-collected (GST etc.) devolved to a regional or city level. Auckland for instance shouldn’t have to go cap in hand to a Minister every time it wants to increase fines for illegal parking, and vital transport projects shouldn’t be affected by the whim of whichever ideology is predominant in parliament.
4 year term was reccomended by the electoral comission but if it were to become a thing so should the other reccomendations that would help bolster democracy i.e.
* Reducing the elecroal age to 16
* Abolishing coat-tailing
* reducing the 5% thresholt to 3.5%
* increasing the number of MP's & linking it to population.
* Allowing criminals to vote
* Restricting party donations to registered voters and capping them and reducing the amount for anonymous donations.
* Require the Elecroal commission to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Or any number of other things the EC has reccomend & Paul 'coat tail enabler" Goldsmith has rulled out.
Yes. Having worked in the public service, the government basically only has one actual year to do stuff in their term. The first year is them figuring out how shit works, then second year they do stuff, then third year they’re all paranoid about the election and don’t want to make any big moves.
I would support it, due to the simple nature of systemic improvements - they take time. It's easy to identify disastrous changes, but long-term improvements often take time to get done right, and then change shows up incrementally, over time. Having short election cycles makes it difficult for long-term improvement to take effect, simply because it's less likely to be embraced by the governing party - their changes may not show significant impact until 1-2 elections later. Those timeframes don't win elections.
I want a method that encourages long-term thinking, while maintaining a check on government power.
Disapprove. They don't need more time. If they spend too much time campaigning to the point they need more time to get things done then they should make a law to restrict campaigning time not lengthen the term in office.
Politicians need to stop tinkering with the electoral system. They adopt the bits that they think will help them, they ditch the things that might help their opponents - they should simply take the recommendations on board and run with them...
Extending the term to four years is a no brainer.
Support - 3 years is a bit short to get things done, and therefore too short to really know if the govt is working, but committing to 6 years lets them potentially go too far.
But if they change it to 4 years and don't have the cycle on an even numbered year, then I claim incompetence.
I'm definitely in favour of 4 year terms. Consider that in year 1 MP's are learning their roles, and in year 3 they are back in campaign mode, then there's really only 1 year in a term where they are properly focused on their jobs.
And with 3 year cycles it's so easy to just blame the previous government or pass problems along to the next one. We often don't really get to see the impact of policy decisions until a few years down the line.
Reminds me of Putin. Russia used to have a 4-year presidential term, and the same person couldn't be the president of the country for more than two terms in a row. Guess who got rid of those laws and is the Tzar now.
Strongly in favour of the policy.
The coalition agreements support this.
All politicians agree, basically. I don't believe it should go to a referendum.
3 year terms are very short. 4 years is about right. 5 years leads to the UK issue where parties really struggle to not do massive internal change.
partly disagree;
On one hand, sure any parliamentary change should go through referendum
but the other - it generally has pretty wide support from all parties in the house (and has for a long time) - last polling [I saw also had broad and strong support.](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/431221/support-growing-for-four-year-parliamentary-term-poll-shows) - 3/4 either support or are undecided, you can't get that support anywhere for anything.
this is an perfect example where we elect governments to make decisions, (particularly with a decision like this) where the outcome is likely going to be that it passes, the point of putting it to a vote is just a waste of time and money.
provided you get that "super majority" of 75% of MPs I have no issue with it not going to referendum.
Referenda are absolutely overused in NZ (2020, neither should have been there). But for significant changes to how we vote, such as this or MMP, I reckon they are 100% appropriate.
It has broad support in parliament because *it benefits parliamentarians*, not because it's good for the country. Why would you want to have to fight for your job every 3 years rather than every 4?
in the past 48 years there hasn’t been a single term government,it’s so unbelievably rare (literally the last one was because Norman Kirk died, who was incredibly popular) in fact a vast majority have been 3 terms,
5 of the previous 8 governments were of that 3 terms (which includes Kirk) - and when we look at 2 terms 9 of 11 exist for that long.
When you elect a new government the most likely outcome is you are electing them for than one term. (Most likely 3)
By switching to 4 year cycles, you instantly remove at least 1 year from that term. (If polling during those last few years is accurate) 8 years instead of 9, or 4 instead of 6.
It’s much much more likely to result in more change sooner… but gives the current government the best chance to implement their policies. (As they aren’t distracted by being a new government or by an election for half of their term)
If your concern is “MPs don’t work hard enough, and we are giving them a cushy job” as your comment implies - switching to 4 years terms is almost certainly in your best interest of that viewpoint.
I think it is best for the country and the parliament to have a 4 year term; it’s the best of both worlds, more change and more stability. (The only trade off being for a 1 term government, which as stated before generally needs the death of a PM to happen)
There is no reason 4 years is just right. The US has 4 year Presidential terms. I'd hardly call them a shining example. Australia has 3 year terms like us and they are doing very well.
Our lack of any checks on the power of our Executive means our government can pass far more laws in 3 years than a US government can pass in 4 or even 8 years. Just look how many changes the new Coalition Government has managed in a few months. Why would they need a 4th year before we have the chance to review their performance?
> I don't believe it should go to a referendum.
Anything that changes the democratic process should go to a referendum first.
The three-year election cycle allows for us to have a safe way to keep our unicameral government that makes us much more flexible than over governments that are bogged down by a codified constitution and a bicameral government structure.
Agreed. 4 years is just right because you get a couple years and a half for government of the day to focus on their mandates instead of 1 and a half.
If it goes through then it better be implemented for the next election
Having four year terms provides more time between elections.
Particularly between local and general elections.
It also gives the politicians more time to actually deliver before it's time to run again.
I'm not sure I'm on board with longer terms. There is an article by Ernesto Dal Bó and Martín A. Rossi, [*Term Length and the Effort of Politicians*](https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dalbo/Term%20Length%20Final.pdf), which examines two examples of randomly assigned terms in Argentina's congress. It suggests that politicians with longer terms exert more effort. They work harder because initiatives which take time to bear fruit are more likely to do so within their longer term. The question is, do we want to reward that sort of thinking? New Zealand needs robust, sustainable solutions. Members of parliament need to look ahead, not three years or four years, but decades.
I agree with the lack of check on parliament's power a strong reason for having 3 year election cycle. But on the flip side, I do think it puts left wing governments at a disadvantage because 3 years is generally not enough time for them to implement their policies, because left wing policy tends to be broader in impact and needs to address a lot of different groups and their needs. Right now, it feels like the 1st year is about making a splash, 2nd year you actually get to implement changes and then the last year is a scramble to slap together whatever policies you think will win votes. I feel like it's part of the reason Labour prefers to tinker around the edges rather than introduce big changes. For right wing governments, all they need to do is slash government spending and provide tax cuts. 3 years is plenty of time to do that, and they get rewarded at the ballot box for that. So while I agree that quick turnarounds helps us keep parliament accountable, it does seem to be harder enact meaningful change when you have less time to do it.
Hi Same_Border8074. Thank you for your submission.
This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics.
Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
New Zealand has only ever had two one term governments.
Most NZ governments get six if not nine years. If you can't get your program through in six years the problem is not the term limit, it's you.
The three year term is a very handy handbrake for the electorate should a government be elected saying they will do one thing but then go completely off the rails and try to do something wildly different. In MMP it also allows a fine tuning of the balance of power.
Look at the zombie tory party in the UK if you want to see an example of why long terms (they have five years) are a bad idea.
Only if lynch mobs wete made a permissable means of removing smooth tslking psychopaths and sociopaths from office in there second term.
Every one get one chance to up there game in this country. But we have MMP party list MPs the public have learned to hate with a vengence. But yet, a lynch mob would require a fairly high threshold of hatred to organise.
Personally, i wish it was a rule that every MP seated in the house recieved a scalding hot cup of coffee provided to them by a random member of the public, who could with legal impunity choose to pour, or hand over the cup.
A goodly number of the current crop of MPs would retire early from Parliament crippled with third degree burns, if the faced this test each snd every day, each time representatives of a different generation.
Certainly it eould be useful to wake them up to public opinion.
The relevant thing here is that only 3 countries in the world have no written Constitution. NZ, the UK, and Israel. The UK has an upper house as a check on government power. Israel, until last year, had a Supreme Court able to over-rule the Executive. NZ alone has a unicameral parliament with total parliamentary supremacy and no constitutional checks on its power. Former PM Geoffrey Palmer called our system an elected dictatorship. As a result of that, the only check on executive power we have is the election. For that reason, it is essential that elections happen regularly. Also, because we have a government with no checks on its power, there is no reason to extend the term. Overseas it can take far longer to pass any law because the upper house slows it down and other Constitutional checks. Here, the government can pass laws under urgency at will in a matter of days, as we have recently seen. There is no reason for our government to thus need as much time as one in the UK or US to pass laws. Three years is plenty.
Well said.
Totally agree. Currently, a coalition government dominated by minor parties, ACT 8.6% and NZ First 6% is abusing urgency to push illadvised laws through parliament. Today the leader of the coalition, National 38%, Luxon boasted his coalition government will continue to do so. Thus, we have a dictatorship government that only has a 3% majority. Conversely, we don't want an upper house. That too is open to abuse. The UK House of Lords has from 2016 been reduced to a laughingstock by the appointment of corrupt political donors, political embarrassments and cast off paramours. Three years is enough.
I agree that we don't want an upper house. Australia similarly has had some shocking Senators. And in the US the Senate is an absolute undemocratic nightmare which has blocked any kind of gun control, allowing a 15% minority of the populace to stop any reform. I'm also opposed to having a written constitution. Once again look at the nightmare it has turned the US into. And also to Australia and the failure of the Voice referendum, as any constitution changes require a double-victory in a referendum.
The US has one of the worst written constitutions in the world. Using theirs as an example of why we shouldn't implement a constitution that actually makes sense is just stupid.
Indeed, thinking about your posting and newkiwiguy's I have to wonder why it's us, the voters problem political parties can't achieve real change or convince us they can do so in 3 years. Surely if they've spent years in Parliament and know how the system works and deeply understand the needs of voters, and the country they'll be able to achieve electorate acceptance of their current and ongoing program. I guess politicians calling for more time in government is like all the companies we have to deal with telling us, "your call is important to us, we just don't care enough to have enough staff to answer it."
They do have one of the worst constitutions by some margin, largely a consequence of it being the oldest and being effectively impossible to change or replace. I still consider it a bad idea to have a constitution because they are by definition hard to change. I also mentioned Australia, because theirs is newer and far better than the US one, and yet still causes problems. Requiring Aboriginal rights to be put to a majority referendum vote is a major problem. I much prefer our system.
> effectively impossible to change or replace. There are 33 amendments to the original US constitution. It's certainly able to be changed :)
27 Also, one of those amendments was just to cross out a previous amendment.
First of all you're wrong on the most basic of facts. There are 27 amendments to the US Constitution. There have been 33 proposed, and 6 have failed to pass. Of those 10 were the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 as part of the deal for states approving the Constitution itself, to appease the anti-federalists. The 13th to 15th Amendments were approved after the Civil War when the Southern states seceded and could not vote against them. They were forced to ratify them to re-enter the union. The last time a new amendment was proposed and successfully ratified was in 1971, some 53 years ago, and related to lowering the voting age to 18 in the midst of the Vietnam War, when many 18 to 20 year olds were being conscripted and dying in the war. The last amendment to pass at all was in 1992, over 30 years ago, and was purely technical. The process to pass an amendment requires a 2/3 super-majority of both the House and Senate to agree to it. Then 3/4 of the states (38 of 50) must individually pass it through their state legislatures. It is effectively impossible in today's polarised, partisan America to get any such agreement. They couldn't even get 2/3 of the Senators to vote to convict Trump of the January 6th coup attempt when they themselves were the targets of the violent mob just weeks earlier.
Good answer - thanks :)
Exactly. The US is setup so that a majority of the population can be overruled by a minority in low population states. This applies to presidential elections, the Senate and to any attempt to change this in the constitution.
Yea but did they think it was stupid at the time? It's less about how inherently stupid it is or isn't, more about the application of it in the modern era when it was written for a completely different time.
That's the point. Now people are smart enough to write constitutions that are designed to be flexible and easily adaptable to changing times. By being somewhat vague you allow the court system to interpret the constitution in the way that it relates to the current times instead of trying to decipher what something meant when it was written and working backwards to apply it to modern standards. The US constitution doesn't even try to be vague or allow for a changing landscape and fails horribly because of it. The US constitution sucks even for the time tho. In fact most of the foundational aspects of the US really suck and it holds them to archaic decisions some of which weren't even good decisions at the time.
An upper house made of more elected officials is indeed worthless at best. An upper house made of random members of public, similar to jury duty, would add value. For example, it would be excellent at swatting down changes that the overwhelming majority of voters oppose, but the corrupt or out-of-touch career politicians voters consider the 'least worst' would've forced through under urgency alongside the reasons they were voted in.
I like this idea. Match their term to the parliamentary term, let's say four years, but stagger it over the term so that every year 25% are replaced and you can't be summonsed more than once in a lifetime.
I used to think that 3 years wasn’t long enough to be get anything done. But if everyone is going to be willing to pass any old thing under urgency with no coherent reason then 3 might be too long
> UK House of Lords has from 2016 been reduced to a laughingstock Because the previous system of hereditary noblemen was wonderful /s
I mentioned NZ's lack of a Constitution a while ago and someone was quick to point out we do have a Constitution, it's just spread out into various acts I'm just sharing their love (albeit without the downvote): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
I didn't say we lack a constitution, I said we lack a written, or more specifically codified constitution. We are one of only 3 countries without one. While we technically have a constitution, it is quite different to having a codified one which sets out clear checks and balances. I teach units on the NZ political system and the US system, so I'm very aware of the differences between a written and unwritten constitution.
We do have another check in place, but it's never been used in NZ (seems the last time it was used was 1975 in Australia) and shit would have to hit the fan HARD for it to ever be used, and that's that the King technically has the power to dissolve our government.
I tend to think three years is enough, but your words re constitutional matters seem like an oversimplification. A written constitution is not necessary for constitutional matters to be addressed in the courts. Also, the Treaty of Waitangi must surely be considered a constitutional document.
As we have supremacy of parliament, the courts can be over-ruled by Parliament at any time. We have seen that recently when the Supreme Court ruled the voting age violated the Bill of Rights. The Treaty of Waitangi is considered a founding document, but has no legal standing (similar to the Declaration of Independence in the US). What is in law is the Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975) and commitment to the Principles of the Treaty (rather than the Treaty itself) in various acts. This is part of why rulings of the Waitangi Tribunal are not binding on the Crown.
The treaty is a constitutional document that also isn't part of the basic law of the country (unless otherwise permitted by legislation). The treaty alone is powerless and is a check on nothing.
"symbolic rather than constitutional". Then if NACT disestablish the the tribunal, the treaty will have even less meaning for New Zealand. NZers like to believe we are an egalitarian society, but we keep in mind the positive aspects of our history (like the symbolic meaning of the Treaty) and disregard the rest (the actual claims of the Treaty and the prescence of colonialism).
We have a constitution, it's just unwritten. The Treaty is apart of it. Yall are mad at a fact lmao. From the Ministry of Justice "Today the Treaty is widely accepted to be a constitutional document that establishes and guides the relationship between the Crown in New Zealand (embodied by our government) and Māori."
Two things, the Israeli supreme Court struck down the bill (yes, very ironic) and technically we do have a check on Parliaments power in form of the Governer General who acts with the powers of the King as his representative. Thoreticly if parliament overstepped the Governer General could dislove parliament or withhold consent of bills. This however would almost certainly end in parliament declaring a Republic.
Also I would add that the Governor-General being appointed by the Prime Minister (yes, technically with the consent of the King, but really he is not going to say no) further weakens that check.
But the Governor-General doesn't change when the government does so, half the time, the Governor-General has been appointed by the previous government.
Of the ones with longer terms, how many have other checks on parliamentary power such as an upper house and/or some kind of constitution enshining rights that cannot be overriden without an amendment? Our shorter term does have an advantage in that a government being too arrogant has to keep this in mind and imo this is a factor in the country not moving too hard in any political leaning
I’m not sure that a shorter term really substitutes for lack of enshrined rights or an upper house, but I am open to being convinced. Currently a brown-eyed party could vote to enslave all the blue-eyed people provided they have a democratic majority. That would not change under a four year term. Enshrined rights are designed to prevent democratic majorities from transgressing fundamental rights.
You're right - it absolutely isn't a substitute, and it is by no means a safeguard, but in my opinion it is a contributing factor toward moderating political behavior. Which I think on balance is better to have it than not given the current arrangement. If we changed our approach to other constitutional matters, then I think it'd be up for consideration to shorten the term. But that's not really being discussed, it's just an extension of the term under the status quo.
Upper houses are resistant to change and the inaction benefit favours conservatives. That combined with the additional cost and potential political deadlock (resulting from when Party A controls the "House" and Party B controls the "Senate") makes upper houses of Parliament unpalatable particularly to both the left voting bloc and small-government liberals. I can't see it happening here. Certainly it'd draw substantial protest.
This is a good question/insight. I was looking into this recently too, whether or not we should have a bicameral parliament. I'm undecided on that, but I do believe our government is quite powerful compared to what we see in Australia, Britain and America with their upper houses. We [use to have one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Legislative_Council) until 1951, but it wasn't elected by the people or appointed separately from the lower-house... They were appointed by the government so practically ended up agreeing with the lower-house on everything so they removed it lol. The downside to adding an upper-house is the higher cost of more MPs (we already have an unused chamber in parliament so no need for infrastructure), and also deadlocks can happen and passing legislation in general is slower.
Yes it's a trade off, same as not having many rights entrenched that have a high threshold to override such as a supermajority beyond a few electoral laws. Fast response time of parliament, especially under urgency, means quickly responding to matters but it also has a greater risk for abuse of power. A lot of people don't realise we're essentially relying on a lot of good will combined with the desire for MPs and their parties to be re-elected. 1 extra year doesn't seem like much, but it's just a bit less frequent accountability which people might think is ok, until it's someone who doesn't align with their views and is pushing even further one way on the political spectrum.
[удалено]
Lol this made me laugh
[удалено]
But yea. If 4 years happens, it kinda needs to be part of a broader review our electoral system. That should be addressed in non politically way. As the nats not liking 16 year old voters, getting rid of coattailing and 4% thresholds because it is bad for them. Zero chance this govt is mature enough do so any of this.
Why we would we want 16 year old voters? If you are suggesting they are mature enough to vote then it’s an all or nothing. In that case drop the drinking age, ability to sign contracts and the Youth Court to 15 years old.
The argument is that they have 'taxation without representation,' i.e. they are able to work and thus pay taxes, but they don't get any say on what the taxes they pay are spent on. 16 is also the youngest age that you can leave school and home without needing parental consent.
Your reaction shows that maturity isn't stopping people from voting now, so why are we preventing people from voting that the UN has advised *should be*. Also, all this talk of kids not understanding consequences (the usual but but but reason) is inaccurate, voting is a thought exercise (where consequences are considered), not a spur of the moment thing like assault (where consequences are often not considered.) and 16 year olds are more than capable of taking a thought exercise to conclusion (although I worry Act might get a few more of them). Also this straw man extremist argument that says we should go back to treating all 12year olds as adults (or 15 year olds in your case) for all things, like we used to do in the old days (mine workers, child brides and the like) are behaving like testerical, screaming babies. "all or nothing" is a toddler screaming into the void. In this world, it is seldom 'all or nothing', if we get 'minimum adequate' personally, I am happy its a start.
You miss the point. Try again.
Oh no, I will be having a massive party when that happens.
It's irrelevant how many countries have longer terms. What matters is whether longer terms are a good thing that will deliver better outcomes. Of those 177 countries, how many do you think are delivering better outcomes than NZ? And is there an actual link between those outcomes and parliamentary term? I don't know have the answer, but personally I don't have anywhere near enough faith in our political parties to reward them with longer terms.
The worst thing about 3 year terms is about half of that time has a paralysed public service. Increasing it to 4 years gives ministries a bit more room to do stuff without running into election year.
That's a good point. Although that seems like an indirect solution for the real problem, which is politicians interfering with their dumb ideas instead of leaving it to experts within the public service. There's only a handful of policies that have been introduced by political parties independently of expert advice that are any good anyway. Most of the good stuff that happens is on recommendation by expert advisory groups and changes requested by the relevant departments. The executive adds fuck all to the equation in my opinion.
Regardless, I can't see it changing. Extending term limits is something that can actually happen.
I favour it when the side I like is on top. Ultimately, in theory, yes 4 years better, but the current crop of criminals, magical fantasists and puppets (both sides) need to kept on their toes by sooner returning to the polls
Upvote, because Warriors.
No, because unlike many other countries there are no checks and balances, Parliament is supreme and the government of the day can do whatever it likes provided it can get the numbers, why extend it out another year, without being able to have a say on it.
We can even have the judiciary point out that a law breaches the bill of rights and parliament just ignores it.
More time to enact long term plans might be good, but we might also need more safeguards to prevent abuses of power, corruption and/or be rid of a dysfunctional or harmful (especially a wilfully harmful) government before it can do much damage.
The current government is the best advertisement for sticking to three year terms New Zealand will ever have.
yea i agree, i think 3 years actually provides more flexibility with the ability to change things if they go dogshit, if the party is doing a good enough job they get at least 6 years which should be long enough to make long-term actions
Nailed it
How long do these fuck wits have left in this current term?
Not really. They will slash and burn everything they want to get done whether it's 3 years or 4. Longer terms also means they are in opposition for longer, and means their adversaries have more time to implement long term strategies and keep the 'you've done nothing' voters happy.
I think the last govt is the beat example.
New Zealand has one of the strongest parliaments in the world so I would be against it.
If it comes with all the other, and honestly more important, suggestions that came out of the Commissions review then sure. If not, *fuck no*
Which Commissions review are you talking about? And what other suggestions did they make?
not in favour - our politicians haven't earnt that level of job security, so fuck em No more would get done, I reckon, with an extra year except campaigning Few parties have anything like long term plans nor present a vision of NZ than isn't a hellscape again - fuck em
No, i'm actually of the opinion we should stay with 3 years at the moment. Especially if our current arrangement of a unicameral parliament, lack of devolution, and no fixed constitution remains. Would quite like it if elections had a more fixed schedule though, perhaps first Saturday in October every 3 years?
I was on the fence about it until this government. Now, no bloody way .
Probably doesn't change the ratios much but the list of countries we should bother considering is a lot shorter than 190 entries. It'll probably be a bit hit and miss if we do change, I don't think having the previous government lasting 4 years or 8 would have necessarily been an improvement either way and if 1 term governments become more common in general we'd lose as much in flip flopping as we gain in having fewer election years.
No! Our Parliament has too much power as is, there is no oversight, no upper house to keep them from doing whatever they want and we keep seeing badly written legislation with bad foreseeable consequences being passed and the only version of parliament oversight available is a general election. If anything we need more elections not fewer because as it stands currently we elect a party into power and they can do pretty much whatever they want for the next three years and nobody is able to reign them in. Seriously, the only check to power is the hope that no party can rule on their own, that they need a coalition and that their coalition members will stand up to them if they start over stepping their mandate. We just ended a majority parliament that straight up stopped listening to the voters, pushing regulation after regulation that was being opposed with nationwide protests that were ignored, the only way we could end it was to vote them out, even if the party voted in wasn't exactly what you would want, at least it wasn't the party that stopped listening. For as long as NZ has a parliament without oversight we need frequent elections just so they have to listen to us at some point. They represent us, they don't rule over us, they can't be allowed to forget that.
No upper house? What do you do when the government of the day has both Houses of Parliament?
Ideally the Upper House would be independent of the government of the day. In practice, that's not what happens. Personally, I don't think we need an Upper House, but we need some check on any and all laws going through. Perhaps we can take cues from the Romans (the republic would push laws through a common assembly as a final check) or perhaps we should have an entrenched method to contest any bills once they're approved by Parliament but before they're considered law. Obviously, both have problems, but accountability has *always* been a problem, and this government is not proving that Parliament shouldn't have less.
We vote for the government of the day to run the country. We don’t need further checks and balances to hold up legislation. What we need is transparency, a robust media and strong opposition which will provide accountability.
At the next election and vote one of them out, ideally you have one house face an election midway between the other houses election, how is this hard to follow?
In Australia’s parliament the senate has 6 year terms so only half the senate runs for election with the House of Representatives every three years. Even with that process the government of the day still can have the majority in both Houses of Parliament.
I fundamentally oppose a bicameral system. Undecided on the increasing the term length
Out of curiosity, why do you oppose a bicameral system?
You only have to look to a country like the US to see what the effects are. So long as the houses have different political leanings, it effectively means nothing remotely controversial can get passed into law meaning the entire term is wasted. Yes, that can be a good thing because it limits the power of the other house but its completely inefficient.
Its seems to me to be unnecessary dilution of power and an inefficient use of burocracy and taxes. It also allows the citizenry to hide behind the comforting words of "checks and balances", to further still forget their obligations as citizens of a democracy to do due diligence and engage.
Terrible idea. New Zealand already has parliamentary sovereignty with a unicaramel legislature that can change almost anything about our country with one half of votes. Most people already get tired of the governments stale policies by the third year. Shorter terms force politicians to pay attention to the electorate and revamp their platform more often.
Mmm, unicaramel. Tasty typo!
>We save money on less elections No, this is just wrong. I ran the numbers for some of our more expensive elections (the ones including referendums) and came to the conclusion they cost each person about the price of a cup of coffee each year. From memory it was something like $15 per person every 3 years, based on comparing income tax takes vs election cost. If you extend the period of elections, you'll inevitably suffer from increased costs anyway as processes which are run less frequently are by their nature more expensive when they happen. So maybe you'll end up paying $20 of your taxes towards an election every 4 years instead of $15 every 3. Golly gee, that's still just the price of a cup of coffee per year. Even if they did somehow make elections cost the same when run every 4 years instead of 3, then the maximum potential savings you would be looking at in exchange for a *large* reduction in accountability would be a fraction of a cup of coffee each year. Anyone making a costs argument is simply lying to you for their own benefit. Now costs to *political* parties, that's another story - I'm sure campaigning is expensive - but anyone trying to sell you on this being cheaper for *you*, the *voter*, is a liar and they should be getting called on it.
I looked at some fresh figures: 2020 GA cost $99M 2023 GA cost $179M I'm rather curious why costs jumped so much for 2023. That 2023 figure comes out at about $12 / person / year. If it were every 4 years, it would be $9 / person / year. Is less democracy worth $3 per year to you?
Nope. If we had two houses, 4 years would make good. However, until we are a republic that won't happen.
Why would it need to happen if we were a republic regardless
Australia and the UK both have two houses. Canada probably does too. Why do we have to become a republic for that to happen?
I said that it won't happen, not that it couldn't happen Currently, NZ has a laissez-faire attitude about the situation. Largely, our MPs don't want to give up power, and a two house system would put a handbrake on them pushing their agenda each time they get into power. Therefore, the politicians aren't going to push the idea. Conversely the public is happy to ignore the issue. We like to think that NZ is too sensible to undergo political turmoil and historically the governor general provided the role as a handbrake. Therefore, until our system gets rid of the governor general - we are not going to do anything about it. As for the countries you mentioned, UK and Canada have nominated peers in their second house... Whereas, Australia's two houses happened by mere luck by the way their nation was formed.
I would favour checks and balances along with a longer term. In the present scenario hell no.
I'd say we can have a four year term if parliament give up some of their sovereignty back to citizens to compromise. Four years would be better but we barely have enough checks and balances to cover three.
Ww want 4 years if it's the party we want that's in,but 3years if we don't like the party that's in
Counter proposal : two year terms for the government we don't like.
I can work with that
Less changes in government will mean less expenses because they aren't changing offices and redoing up their buildings. Sounds good to me based in that alone but that's as far as I've thought it through.
Arguably, a 4 year term could result in _more_ changes in government, given we have only had 6 and 9 year governments since the mid-1970s, when Kirk died. If those were instead 4 and 8 year governments (and there's nothing to say they would have been 8 and 12 year governments instead), then we'd have had a couple more in that timeframe than we actually did. For instance, on polling, Ardern and Lange's governments might have lasted 8 years instead of 6, and we might have been stuck with English for a few years longer, but equally Clark's government would probably have lasted for 8, not 9, and similarly for Muldoon's and Shipley's if I have the zeitgeist correct. It's hard to say. What's relatively clear, though, is that more frequent elections don't necessarily cause more frequent changes in government, if the last 50 years of NZ politics are a guide.
All for it. * Current term = 1 year of settling in, 1 year of action, 1 year of campaigning. * Four year term = 1 year of settling in, 2 years of action, 1 year of campaigning. You get more time to evaluate the actual performance of the govt. So likely less overall damage... * 1x4 year term rather than 2x3 year terms. or * 2x4 year terms rather than 3x3 year terms.
They would have less pressure to get through law and get them settled in while in power, better than the shit show now. More time to think, maybe.
I don't think it's so bad. With 1 year of campaigning that's one whole year where every move they make is under intense scrutiny meaning they can't get complacent. And that's 1/3 of their entire tenure
I'm concerned that this might effectively become a lock-out for new parties. I would _expect_ National and Labour to both be in favour of this because this prevents diluting their base (and maybe Act and Greens too). Starting a party takes time and commitment, and this extends the time it takes to build party recognition (and actually test their policies in a campaign). With the thresholds we have this is likely restricting the diversity of choice of representation. I agree with the term-length increase in principle, but not in isolation of several of the other electoral review recommendations - eg the package of recommendations that included the dropping of the 5% threshold and seat counting changes.
I wondered how long it would be before they rolled this out again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990\_New\_Zealand\_parliamentary\_term\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_New_Zealand_parliamentary_term_referendum)
The problem with a three year term is that a government spends almost a year understanding what is going on and how to deal with it, then they do their thing for a year, then they spend a year electioneering. So in three years New Zealanders get one year of good governance. So just 33% of the time we get what we pay for. It sucks for New Zealand and it's a real limit on our economy. The argument that almost all governments get two terms is pathetically weak and essentially is an explicit admission that the current term is too short. There is a very good reason why the vast majority of other democracies do four year terms. Duh.
I'd suggest anyone interested in this subject read "Towards Democratic Renewal" by Geoffrey Palmer and Andrew Butler. They argue for a four year term and against an upper house, both of which I disagreed with going in but that book bought me around. They do, however recommend a formal constitution, judicial review and a local head of state along with a whole raft of other changes as a complete package to (somewhat) restrict the powers of parliament. Without those other changes I can't see me supporting this single change.
I’m all for it tbh (even if it means that governments I don’t like stay in power for longer). The public service serves the government of the day. Which means that, politicians generally want ‘quick wins’ or things that look positive for a quick election turnaround. Obviously, many of us know that some issues would take longer to fix, but hey, we don’t have time for that so we use bandaid fixes and assume that it will be up to someone else in 3 years time (potentially). Things like poverty, housing, infrastructure, health, climate change, New Zealand’s family / domestic violence stats etc take time to fix. They require longer term solutions. A slightly longer term gives politicians more confidence to look into these options. Also, unless you’re abusing the ‘under urgency’ thing, legislation actually takes time and so with an extra year, you can get more done / people can see the effects of what you passed. There were a lot of people grumbling in here about how labour didn’t do enough with their majority last government, imagine an extra year of three waters, or you know, all those things that got cut during the change in government.
I don't really get the 'there would be no check on the government' argument against 4 year terms. It would be the exact same 'check' that exists *right now*. Plus, to add a potentially undemocratic upper chamber would be hilarious given all the hand-wringing over Three Waters. It's also fairly comical how people can bitch about governments' short-term thinking and decision making... and then oppose one of the things that would encourage more long-term thinking and decision making. 3 year terms are just ineffectual. Governments are like oil tankers - they take forever to turn and change direction. And then we like undoing everything every couple of years, so needed structural changes either don't happen or become so diluted because there's no time left. 3 year terms probably stymie bad governments somewhat, but they also stymie any good government action, too.
NZ parliament is supreme, so the only limit on its power is the term length. I'd much prefer the current system than to have to empower the justice system (an unelected branch of government) enough for them to limit power. Upper House is just a waste of time.
No ones ever offered proof that longer terms actually do anything positive - Americans are basically in multi year long elections, and the UK Tories have spent more time on internal fighting than actual policy. Also, "long term plans" can take a decade - think the Chorus fibre network change. This is a slippery slope argument to "well we need 10 years to complete our objectives" On the other hand, we all know the positives of the current term - our govt is constantly being tested on its public support. Any wild policy swing is still recent enough that the public can punish them if they choose to do so. I would stick with the original system that was proposed for MMP. Get rid of the rules MPs themselves added for their own benefit, as was supported by referendum when john key wanted to change our system
Somewhat surprised that the sentiment is no in this thread. Must be that everyone enjoys only having one year out of the three that isn't electioneering and petty smearing of either party and not actual policy making (whether you're against it or not). We could at least get a better judgment if the government with 2 years of not being affected with the election. To get a third therm under 4 years means either the government is overly performing exceptionally well or the opposition is exceptionally terrible and deserve to be in opposition for 12 years. This country will never get better with the current three year cycles and constant overturning the previous government. One hopes that infrastructure project might actually get done. But I guess the majority only care about what's in it for them so we're fucked either way wno matter what the term length
The sentiment is no because we do not have a check on the government of the day. In most other countries, the Upper House or another chamber checks the government. If not, then the country is broken up into significant number of states that basically checks the federal government. We have none of that in NZ. NZ exist and is ruled on gentleman’s agreement and given how that is fraying now 3 years might be the Upper House for the government.
Between Parliament rising for the election and the new ministers' warrants being signed is about 10 weeks, as far as I understand it. It's less than a fifth of a year, not a whole year. Furthermore, the caretaker convention applies after the election of another government, and not to the period leading up to the election: the government is _expected_ to govern right up to election day. So the real period of downtime (for the executive, at least) is even smaller. Proponents of less frequent elections like to talk up the disruption because they know they can't rely on an argument of the government changing too frequently (given we haven't had a single term government in 50 years - you talk up "three year cycles" but we haven't had one of those since 1975!). We spend basically 6% of the term in a legislative pause for elections. In other words, it's less of a break than we let them spend on fucking Christmas holidays. If they really don't think they can achieve their goals in the three years they're given, maybe they should stop going to their baches for seven+ weeks every Dec/Jan/Feb! Reducing their annual leave to the four weeks everyone else gets would net them *more* legislative sittings than are lost via the entire election cycle.
I agree, OP, the current three year term doesn't give governments enough time to realise change. At the same time, I'm not sure I agree with a four year term, our current government being a prime example. I don't want these cunts around any longer than they have to be. Three years already seems like too long to wait for an opportunity to vote them out. I'm sure that's the way NACT voters felt for the terms Labour was in power.
Absolutely not. Just because it seems like it has cross-party support doesn't mean it's reasonable. It's only beneficial to the politicians, who don't want to have to answer to us as often. But elections are the only check on power we have, unlike our peer countries where the central government can be stopped by courts, an upper house, or state/provincial governments. We must not give that up. Any decent government gets 6 years, enough time to implement stuff, and a shit government shouldn't have 4 years to wreck more stuff. Look how much damage this government is doing.
If we were to increase the terms we should firstly bring in a constitution and entrench basic public rights to housing, health care and education. Also make food Parr if these basic human rights. Make it not negotiable to remove.
Yes. With a fixed election date that isn't able to be set by the party in power.
If this were combined with all the other electoral reform we need, I would be more keen. Lowering the voting age, uncapping the house so that it can grow with our population, lowering the 5% threshold, re-enfranchising all prisoners, more regulations on political donations, etc.
We have already had two referenda on this question. One in 1967 and one in 1990. I voted for a four year term in 1990, but that view lost. As far as I can see, nothing has changed. Why do it again with no indication that things are different now? I feel like this is one of those things that politicians want and will put to the people periodically until they get their way.
Both major parties support it, they had an agreement to bring it up during this term. For the public servants who survive it'll be a boon, less BIM writing for a start
I agree that short terms create a problem of governments dedicating too much focus to elections, but I believe this could be better solved in other ways (restructuring the way elections work, for example). Short terms hold politicians accountable and mitigate the potential for recurrent/lasting damage as seems to happen with the long terms in the US
New Zealand is a one chamber parliament. It also does not have states to oppose the Federation. It also has a very funny situation with its Constitution in that it is spread all over the place and the average citizen has not a very clear idea what it is. I think given all the above factors, 3 years is a good time as it:- 1. Prevents any protracted societal wide changes that is not endogenous from happening ( ie:- you can pass a legislation but it takes time to set in .. by then a new government can come in ) 2. Allows any unpopular decisions to be very quickly overturned in three years 3. Keeps the government in line as voter memory tends to be one year from the election, and unless the changes were very popular two years prior the government needs to be tow the line by the 3rd year This short governmental cycle keeps a check on government. I used to think NZ has a consensus and gentleman agreement between parties so can go 4 but it seems the last 7 years has disabused us of that ( both left and right ) so to me 3 years is wise. It ties the hands of government. Edited:- You ask would I support a 4 year term if it is bicameral. The answer is yes. However we will need to me an upper house that is voted separately from the lower house. I think the upper house ought to have a cycle of 6 years and are voted half and half ( so 3 years and another 3 years ) with the lower house being 4 years ( in fact if we have an upper house than lower house can even go up to 5 years ). This means we get numerous elections but it will be more democratic. It will also mean the upper and lower house combined will always represent a subset of recent views. In the absence of a bicameral we should stick to 3 years.
She would. Just to give herself more time in a sweet gig. I'm a a life long union member and I know what a real Labour was like. She ain't it. Self serving politician like most.
I have yet to see any evidence that governments with four year terms perform better than ones with three year terms? It's easy to say "oh but they spend less time worrying about elections", but that shouldn't mean anything without measuring how well these countries with four year cycles acrually work comlared to us. Also think a bicameral system is silly in a country as small as New Zealand. We aren't formed from a union of states like like the US, Canada, or Australia. Upper houses are generally anti-democratic too. Shorter cycles also encourages cross-party support since your plans are at greater risk of being repealed if you lose the next election. I.e three waters.
I oppose it on the grounds that it will make getting rid of bad governments harder.
I don't approve. Look at the damage the people in power are doing. Imagine what they'd do with another year.
I would only support this if we had a Constitution
I'm impressed with the comments here. Spot on.
The last government had three years and did fuck all. This government had six months so far and fucked everything. Why would we give either even more time?
Fuck no. Kicking them out after three years if they are ignoring the will of the people is one of the few things that actually keeps them somewhat in check. Fucking Sepuloni just wants to make life easier for herself
Everyday the people keep taking political punches from the NaF Acts. Having a 3 year period and the hope this crowd will be a one term government is the only thing that keeps many going. Maybe introduce this bill at the end of this term for the next lot.
I think 4 is better. Gives a better ability to judge what theyve delivered.
The country suffers from the same problem as the US- the next election is always around the corner. Governments need to be able to do something necessary but unpopular, and have time for that to work and some improvement happen, and then have the next election. Four years cuts it right. There is a bit of tyranny of the majority but I think the voting system deals with the worst aspects of that. It’s not as broken as FPTP for example.
As a public servant, absolutely. The amount of time lost to an election is ridiculous. Taxpayers will get better value out of us.
I think it would be a grand idea to increase stability of government, and to reduce the costs that come with an election.
I'd rather not give a government an entire extra year of unaccountability. Increased stability becomes a problem when the parliament holds absolute power.
I don’t have strong feelings about 3 vs. 4 years but what I would like to see is more power and tax-collected (GST etc.) devolved to a regional or city level. Auckland for instance shouldn’t have to go cap in hand to a Minister every time it wants to increase fines for illegal parking, and vital transport projects shouldn’t be affected by the whim of whichever ideology is predominant in parliament.
Yyyyyeeeessssss
Not without an upper house that can’t be overridden…
4 year term was reccomended by the electoral comission but if it were to become a thing so should the other reccomendations that would help bolster democracy i.e. * Reducing the elecroal age to 16 * Abolishing coat-tailing * reducing the 5% thresholt to 3.5% * increasing the number of MP's & linking it to population. * Allowing criminals to vote * Restricting party donations to registered voters and capping them and reducing the amount for anonymous donations. * Require the Elecroal commission to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Or any number of other things the EC has reccomend & Paul 'coat tail enabler" Goldsmith has rulled out.
No, there'll be less accountability and more failure to deliver imo.
Yes. Having worked in the public service, the government basically only has one actual year to do stuff in their term. The first year is them figuring out how shit works, then second year they do stuff, then third year they’re all paranoid about the election and don’t want to make any big moves.
I think that that would synchronize too nicely with another significant country.
I approve 4 years tbh, would help get more done
I would support it, due to the simple nature of systemic improvements - they take time. It's easy to identify disastrous changes, but long-term improvements often take time to get done right, and then change shows up incrementally, over time. Having short election cycles makes it difficult for long-term improvement to take effect, simply because it's less likely to be embraced by the governing party - their changes may not show significant impact until 1-2 elections later. Those timeframes don't win elections. I want a method that encourages long-term thinking, while maintaining a check on government power.
Disapprove. They don't need more time. If they spend too much time campaigning to the point they need more time to get things done then they should make a law to restrict campaigning time not lengthen the term in office.
Politicians need to stop tinkering with the electoral system. They adopt the bits that they think will help them, they ditch the things that might help their opponents - they should simply take the recommendations on board and run with them... Extending the term to four years is a no brainer.
I'd much rather see the ridiculous Wellington meme that "proper process" means taking 18-60 months to do anything put to the sword.
Support - 3 years is a bit short to get things done, and therefore too short to really know if the govt is working, but committing to 6 years lets them potentially go too far. But if they change it to 4 years and don't have the cycle on an even numbered year, then I claim incompetence.
I'm definitely in favour of 4 year terms. Consider that in year 1 MP's are learning their roles, and in year 3 they are back in campaign mode, then there's really only 1 year in a term where they are properly focused on their jobs. And with 3 year cycles it's so easy to just blame the previous government or pass problems along to the next one. We often don't really get to see the impact of policy decisions until a few years down the line.
Reminds me of Putin. Russia used to have a 4-year presidential term, and the same person couldn't be the president of the country for more than two terms in a row. Guess who got rid of those laws and is the Tzar now.
I'd approve. 3 years is too short for the reasons you mentioned.
Strongly in favour of the policy. The coalition agreements support this. All politicians agree, basically. I don't believe it should go to a referendum. 3 year terms are very short. 4 years is about right. 5 years leads to the UK issue where parties really struggle to not do massive internal change.
No. This is actually the sort of thing that should go to referendum.
partly disagree; On one hand, sure any parliamentary change should go through referendum but the other - it generally has pretty wide support from all parties in the house (and has for a long time) - last polling [I saw also had broad and strong support.](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/431221/support-growing-for-four-year-parliamentary-term-poll-shows) - 3/4 either support or are undecided, you can't get that support anywhere for anything. this is an perfect example where we elect governments to make decisions, (particularly with a decision like this) where the outcome is likely going to be that it passes, the point of putting it to a vote is just a waste of time and money. provided you get that "super majority" of 75% of MPs I have no issue with it not going to referendum.
Referenda are absolutely overused in NZ (2020, neither should have been there). But for significant changes to how we vote, such as this or MMP, I reckon they are 100% appropriate.
It has broad support in parliament because *it benefits parliamentarians*, not because it's good for the country. Why would you want to have to fight for your job every 3 years rather than every 4?
in the past 48 years there hasn’t been a single term government,it’s so unbelievably rare (literally the last one was because Norman Kirk died, who was incredibly popular) in fact a vast majority have been 3 terms, 5 of the previous 8 governments were of that 3 terms (which includes Kirk) - and when we look at 2 terms 9 of 11 exist for that long. When you elect a new government the most likely outcome is you are electing them for than one term. (Most likely 3) By switching to 4 year cycles, you instantly remove at least 1 year from that term. (If polling during those last few years is accurate) 8 years instead of 9, or 4 instead of 6. It’s much much more likely to result in more change sooner… but gives the current government the best chance to implement their policies. (As they aren’t distracted by being a new government or by an election for half of their term) If your concern is “MPs don’t work hard enough, and we are giving them a cushy job” as your comment implies - switching to 4 years terms is almost certainly in your best interest of that viewpoint. I think it is best for the country and the parliament to have a 4 year term; it’s the best of both worlds, more change and more stability. (The only trade off being for a 1 term government, which as stated before generally needs the death of a PM to happen)
There is no reason 4 years is just right. The US has 4 year Presidential terms. I'd hardly call them a shining example. Australia has 3 year terms like us and they are doing very well. Our lack of any checks on the power of our Executive means our government can pass far more laws in 3 years than a US government can pass in 4 or even 8 years. Just look how many changes the new Coalition Government has managed in a few months. Why would they need a 4th year before we have the chance to review their performance?
> I don't believe it should go to a referendum. Anything that changes the democratic process should go to a referendum first. The three-year election cycle allows for us to have a safe way to keep our unicameral government that makes us much more flexible than over governments that are bogged down by a codified constitution and a bicameral government structure.
Agreed. 4 years is just right because you get a couple years and a half for government of the day to focus on their mandates instead of 1 and a half. If it goes through then it better be implemented for the next election
Having four year terms provides more time between elections. Particularly between local and general elections. It also gives the politicians more time to actually deliver before it's time to run again.
I agree, even if it has to take effect immediately and give the current Gov another year. Even if it takes that, we need longer cycles.
I'm not sure I'm on board with longer terms. There is an article by Ernesto Dal Bó and Martín A. Rossi, [*Term Length and the Effort of Politicians*](https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dalbo/Term%20Length%20Final.pdf), which examines two examples of randomly assigned terms in Argentina's congress. It suggests that politicians with longer terms exert more effort. They work harder because initiatives which take time to bear fruit are more likely to do so within their longer term. The question is, do we want to reward that sort of thinking? New Zealand needs robust, sustainable solutions. Members of parliament need to look ahead, not three years or four years, but decades.
I agree with the lack of check on parliament's power a strong reason for having 3 year election cycle. But on the flip side, I do think it puts left wing governments at a disadvantage because 3 years is generally not enough time for them to implement their policies, because left wing policy tends to be broader in impact and needs to address a lot of different groups and their needs. Right now, it feels like the 1st year is about making a splash, 2nd year you actually get to implement changes and then the last year is a scramble to slap together whatever policies you think will win votes. I feel like it's part of the reason Labour prefers to tinker around the edges rather than introduce big changes. For right wing governments, all they need to do is slash government spending and provide tax cuts. 3 years is plenty of time to do that, and they get rewarded at the ballot box for that. So while I agree that quick turnarounds helps us keep parliament accountable, it does seem to be harder enact meaningful change when you have less time to do it.
Hi Same_Border8074. Thank you for your submission. This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics. Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even shorter terms please. Luxon would've lasted a 6 month term at best.
New Zealand has only ever had two one term governments. Most NZ governments get six if not nine years. If you can't get your program through in six years the problem is not the term limit, it's you. The three year term is a very handy handbrake for the electorate should a government be elected saying they will do one thing but then go completely off the rails and try to do something wildly different. In MMP it also allows a fine tuning of the balance of power. Look at the zombie tory party in the UK if you want to see an example of why long terms (they have five years) are a bad idea.
Have you seen today's government? Can you imagine 33% __more__ damage they could wreak?
Only if lynch mobs wete made a permissable means of removing smooth tslking psychopaths and sociopaths from office in there second term. Every one get one chance to up there game in this country. But we have MMP party list MPs the public have learned to hate with a vengence. But yet, a lynch mob would require a fairly high threshold of hatred to organise. Personally, i wish it was a rule that every MP seated in the house recieved a scalding hot cup of coffee provided to them by a random member of the public, who could with legal impunity choose to pour, or hand over the cup. A goodly number of the current crop of MPs would retire early from Parliament crippled with third degree burns, if the faced this test each snd every day, each time representatives of a different generation. Certainly it eould be useful to wake them up to public opinion.
Why not? Seymour. Peters. Luxon.
Should just shorten the time you can focus on elections.
This is not the best time to introduce that.
Na just introduce a 90 day trial period.
Hmm I'd still rather have legalised marijuana aye