Electoral reform is never straightforward. Cross-party consensus is desirable, but our adversarial system incentivises opposition.
While almost all parties in Parliament support a four-year term, they disagree about the specifics.
For the Government of the day, there's also the inescapable impression that you are granting yourself more time in office.
Prime Minister Forbes attempted that in 1934 by passing a law — without a referendum — to move to four-year terms.
The severe public backlash contributed to his party losing the 1935 election, sweeping Michael Joseph Savage and the first Labour government into power.
That is why Labour should ensure that the inaugural beneficiaries of any lengthening of the Parliamentary term are their political foes.
I'll leave it to the legislation drafting experts to figure out how.
The case for change is compelling. Almost every other democratic country has concluded that four- or five-year terms are superior to three.
You can see why. From my experience working in both Government and Opposition, I am convinced that our short-termism impairs policy-making and cheapens our politics.
When an election is never very far away, quick, popular, Band-Aid fixes grow in appeal.
Take away coalition negotiations, summer breaks and the campaigning period, and the window to get things done is no more than 30 months.
Given we face deeply rooted, multigenerational social and economic problems, arguably that isn't enough time.
Perhaps that is why these multigenerational problems persist. If we could slow down the political treadmill, we might have a better shot at embedding change.
There are practical benefits too. A general election these days leaves little change from $100 million. Having three elections every 12 years — rather than four — would mean an annualised saving to the taxpayer of $8.3 million.
There is a view that giving the Government another year in office requires that more power be given to the Opposition.
Act leader David Seymour has a members' bill in the ballot that attempts this quid pro quo. His bill proposes a four-year term with a catch: control of Parliament's select committees would in effect be handed to the Opposition.
That sounds like a recipe for grinding Parliament to a halt.
And besides, more power to the Opposition is not the same as more accountability to the public.
If a counterbalance is required, then perhaps there is another way.
Instead of mucking around with select committees, let's widen our entire democracy by lowering the voting age.
Expanding the number of New Zealanders who can participate in our democratic system would fundamentally change the equation of our politics.
Governments would be accountable to an entirely new, and vocal, constituency.
In time, we may even see a new youth focussed political party arise, given that people aged between 16 and 24 would make up around 14 per cent of an expanded voting population.
As the brilliant young leaders of the "Make It 16" campaign point out, many 16- and 17-year-olds are taxpayers after all.
Given the clarity and energy with which our young people approach issues such as climate change, housing and inequality, formally including them in our politics would be no bad thing.
Let's make this change before they, and we, get too old.
Andrew Kirton was Labour's General Secretary from 2016-2018. He now works in government relations for transtasman firm Anacta Consulting. He is married to a Labour MP.
