Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announcement to introduce legislation on a four-year Parliamentary term, subject to a referendum. Video / Dean Purcell
The Government is about to introduce a bill for a variable term of Parliament, meaning the Government of the day can choose between a three- or four-year term.
A four-year term would require Opposition-majority select committees, which would in theory provide added scrutiny.
Governing parties have committed to supporting the bill at first reading, but not beyond that
Based on an Act Party draft bill, the changes would mean the parliamentary term staying at three years, but with the option of extending to four years if the Government hands over effective control of certain select committees to the Opposition.
In its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Ministry of Justice officials said the proposal was “much worse than the status quo because features of the bill are constitutionally and practically problematic”.
“Prior to each general election, there would be uncertainty about the length of the upcoming parliamentary term ... This uncertainty would undermine democratic accountability and risks undermining the legitimacy of Parliament and its exercise of public decision-making powers,” the RIS said.
“Some settings are out of step with other long-standing legal and constitutional principles, including that it appears to encroach on the House of Representatives' right to control its own operations.”
Act leader David Seymour said that it wasn’t uncommon in many democratic countries for the people to be unsure when the next election will be.
“New Zealand has been a major outlier in how regular its elections are. But I don’t think anyone’s saying that Australia is less democratic than New Zealand after its long series of spills, elections, and new prime ministers that it has had for the last 15 years.”
Australian politics experienced several leadership spills during that time that led to a change in Prime Minister, but federal elections were still only held every three years.
Act leader David Seymour. Photo / Dean Purcell
Seymour conceded that Australia didn’t have a variable term, as the bill proposes, with the decision resting with the sitting government.
“My point is that other countries frequently go to the polls on irregular cycles. Voters in many countries really can’t reliably know when the next election’s going to be.”
Whether the bill will become law is unclear. Coalition commitments mean the governing parties have agreed to support it to the select committee stage, with no promises beyond that.
Ministry officials said there was “limited evidence and varying views” on whether three or four years would be better.
But it said any referendum on the issue should include a four-year option, alongside the status quo and any option that arises from coalition commitments, such as a variable term.
Consideration of a four-year parliamentary term is part of both the National-Act and the National-NZ First coalition agreements. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Three years versus four years
Officials noted the findings of the Independent Electoral Review panel, which said the arguments between a three- or four-year term were “finely balanced”, and that public engagement feedback was “mixed”.
A three-year term provides voters with more frequent opportunities to elect their representatives, but questions have arisen over whether it incentivises the kind of bad policy that arises from short-termism, or rushing legislation through under parliamentary urgency.
“It has been suggested that politicians—and ministers in particular—spend the first year of their term learning the ropes and settling in, the second ‘getting things done’, and the third campaigning for re-election," the RIS said.
“There are electoral costs for an incumbent Government pursuing major reform later in the term (resulting in a reduced chance of an incumbent leader being re-elected by about 17%),” it added, citing Victoria University of Wellington research.
A four-year term would save the Crown the money it would spend holding more frequent elections, and the opportunity cost of more time spent campaigning and forming a Government, rather than governing.
One Electoral Commission estimate said a four-year term would save $14 million a year.
“Any increase in efficiency from reduced costs needs to be offset against the potential costs to the health of New Zealand’s democracy that may result from the reduction in accountability to voters by less frequent elections,” the RIS said.
“Overall there is little research, data, or evidence that can be used to assess whether longer parliamentary terms do objectively deliver the potential benefits of better decision-making and legislation, greater public engagement, parliamentary scrutiny, and enhanced longer-term planning.”
One Electoral Commission estimate said a four-year term would save $14 million a year. Photo / Bevan Conley
The variable term: the worst option
The National-Act coalition agreement agreed to support Act’s bill for a four-year term at first reading, but no commitment beyond that.
The bill proposes a variable term, with the sitting Government able to make it four years if parliamentary select committees are controlled by Opposition parties, which should improve the scrutiny of proposed legislation.
Officials raised several questions, including whether a four-year term would revert to three years if the make-up of select committees changed so they were no longer Opposition-controlled.
Leaving the term at four years would remove significant uncertainty. But this could lead to a scenario of a four-year term without Opposition-majority committees, which would “defeat the purpose”.
The alternative would require a statute binding the length of the term to select committee proportionality, but this would “significantly intrude into the ability of the House to control its own procedure”.
Opposition-controlled select committees may also lead to “perverse incentives (e.g. bypassing or reducing select committee consideration of legislation)”.
The RIS noted other risks including:
“creating uncertainty for the public, local government, businesses and communities in terms of how frequently there may be changes to government policy”.
complicating processes connected to the term length; for example, some government departments must provide information on strategic intentions at least once every three-year period.
“significant practical challenges if sometimes local government elections coincided with the general election”. They are currently set up so they never coincide.
“Given the constitutional significance of the term of Parliament, a variable term would introduce significant uncertainty and unnecessary complexity to a fundamental setting for which it is essential there is long-term certainty,” the RIS said.
This would mean voters could not be certain when they can hold Governments to account, which “risks undermining the legitimacy of Parliament”.
It would also be a legal and constitutional affront if the Executive had the power to change the length of the term, if this would be done by Order in Council.
This could be mitigated by changing it via a resolution in the House, though this would still be “highly unusual constitutionally”.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says at this stage no decisions have been made on how far the bill might progress. Photo / Dean Purcell
Seymour said allowing the winner of an election to organise select committees would not encroach on the sovereignty of Parliament.
“The only change is that the person who wants it to be four years has to be certain that the House of Representatives is organised in a way that gives independent select committees.
“If it’s an encroachment on Parliament that the person who wins the election can organise select committees, for example, then every time we set up Parliament, that’s an encroachment.”
No certainty on the bill’s future
“At this stage, no decisions have been made on whether the bill will proceed beyond this,” Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said last week.
“Future decisions will also need to be made by the Government as to whether the bill proceeds as introduced, or whether it should be amended.
“We want to hear what New Zealanders think during the select committee process.”
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery team and is a former deputy political editor.
