Expert opinion from University of Otago - Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka
Opinion: One of the less talked about policies of the new coalition Government is the plan to put forward a bill to hold a binding referendum on extending the parliamentary term from three to four years.
A four-year term has been recommended by several electoral system reviews, and on paper makes a lot of sense – but there are caveats attached to such a change.
The benefits of a four-year term
It is incredibly rare for governments in New Zealand to only serve for a single three-year term. Part (but not all) of this is because of the attitude many voters have of giving governments a ‘fair go’. Three years is almost subliminally seen as too short for most governments to get a fair crack at doing what they said they would.
A longer term can provide more stability and continuity in governance. With a longer term, governments may have a better chance to implement and assess the effectiveness of long-term policies.
There are also benefits from reducing the frequency of elections. Elected representatives can spend less time in campaign mode and more time focused on governance and addressing the needs of their constituents.
Shorter election cycles can lead to ‘election fatigue’ for politicians and the public. New Zealand has stubbornly average turnout under MMP, which could benefit from less frequent elections. Longer terms may reduce the frequency of elections and associated campaign activities.
Elections are also expensive. Longer terms could reduce the financial costs associated with frequent elections as campaigns.
The supremacy problem
Parliament is the supreme legislative power in New Zealand.
In effect, Parliament can make or repeal any law with limited restrictions. The only real check on Parliament’s powers (currently) is the three-yearly election cycle.
One of the issues with a shift to four-year terms is the potential reduction in accountability and responsiveness to the electorate. Extending terms may reduce the frequency with which representatives must face voters, potentially reducing accountability.
Lengthening terms might make it more challenging to respond quickly to rapidly changing political, economic, or social circumstances. Governments may become less flexible and are at greater risk of policy mistakes or unpopular decisions may have a more prolonged impact on the country, as the Government has more time between elections to pursue its agenda.
Longer terms can also lead to political stagnation, where ineffective or unpopular governments remain in power for an extended period without facing the consequences at the polls.
More than just a term extension
The move to a four-year term is a positive shift, but this is where the caveats come in.
Changing term lengths in a vacuum ignores many of those accountability issues. There are a range of solutions, but they need to be included in the discussion of four-year terms and not be an afterthought.
The first option many look to is the implementation of an Upper House of Parliament, such as a legislative council (which New Zealand removed in 1950) or Senate. This body would provide legislative oversight for the existing House of Parliament. One downside of upper houses is that they are often tied to similar political arrangements as the lower house, which can limit their effectiveness.
There are also a range of direct democracy measures that could be implemented to give the public greater involvement in holding politicians to account, with tools such as referendums, citizens’ initiatives, town hall meetings, citizens’ assemblies, civics education and online voting.
Referendums are the most well-known of these tools but are relatively under-used as a means to engage the public. It was New Zealand First policy at the 2023 election to advocate for greater use of referendums, and “Where practical timelines permit, remove the use of personal votes by Members of Parliament on all conscience issues and replace them with citizens’ binding referenda”.
Greater engagement with the public through town hall meetings and the use of citizens assemblies would also create greater links between the public and politicians and help build trust. Town hall meetings allow for direct engagement between politicians and voters, while citizens’ assemblies use selected groups of citizens to deliberate on specific topics and feed into government decisions.
In practice, direct democracy allows citizens to be more involved in decision-making, fostering a sense of civic engagement. Direct democracy is not a panacea but could be greater used to ensure government accountability and responsiveness.
Timing is everything
As we’ve seen with previous referendums, turnout differs significantly when they are held separately from a general election. The 1992 indicative referendum on the electoral system had a turnout of 55 percent, but the binding referendum on whether to change to MMP (held alongside the 1993 general election) had a turnout of 83 percent.
Given this, it is unlikely a referendum would be held before the 2026 election, and if successful, would mean the earliest a four-year term could commence would be after the 2029 election.
The upside of this timing is it allows conversations to take place around what other safeguards and mechanisms could be put in place to strengthen democracy and provide greater oversight and assurance of our democratic processes.
I agree with the point made in this opinion piece that any consideration of a change to a 4 year Parliamentary term should be part of a discussion about other safeguards and mechanisms to put in place.
This point is strongly made in the mid-2023 interim report by the Interim Electoral Review panel. In that report it recommended a referendum of the term of Parliament as part of a package of other changes eg voting age, reduced threshold for MMP, tighter limits on donations and advertising spending. Their final report was delivered to the Minister of Justice on 30 November. This final report has yet to be publicly released.
Modern history should provide plenty of data points to examine the question of parliamentary term. And perhaps the question should swing around the problem solving ability of the administrations. There is also the question of whether the two party system has merit. One puzzle is why a grand coalition of National and Labour was not on the table. It would have represented far more of the electorate, and put them in a position to address the big problems that do not have a popular solutions.
New Zealand has repeatedly demonstrated that change of substance can be made inside a three year term. Labour 1972, Labour 1984, and perhaps National 1991.
Unfortunately Britain and the United States do not seem to be making good use of longer terms and in Britains’ case it seems to prolong an incompetent administration.
The context of democracy within society needs to be considered. Most of us work in strongly hierarchical structures, and our families tend to be hierarchical in nature. The corporate world strongly resists any control by citizens. What can we do to improve democracy?
I believe that is an important task because the merit of democracy is in enabling society to change without violence.
It would also strengthen local democracy as local and regional government could also go to four years.