Time to extend electoral cycle?

Amid the points of contention in Wednesday’s televised leaders’ debate between Labour’s Jacinda Ardern and National’s Judith Collins, there was a significant agreement that deserves further exploration. The political rivals agreed New Zealand should move to a four-year election cycle, to give elected members more time to achieve their policy goals and fulfil election promises.

The call comes as the country faces increasingly complex social and economic challenges, not to mention the long road to recovery from Covid-19.

The introduction of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) in the mid-1990s forced parties to work together to form governments, apart from the unlikely event where one could win enough seats to govern alone. That means minor coalition parties acting as a check on the policy decisions of the major party in a coalition. By contrast, under the previous First Past the Post (FFP) system, the party that won the election had the opportunity to roll out a policy programme largely unconstrained.

In that context, keeping the term of government as short as possible made sense. But with the checks and balances provided by MMP, three years simply seems too short.

The role of NZ First in particular in the current Government has been a good example of those checks and balances in play. Labour and the Greens might have seen it as a handbrake at times, but the parties opposed to a capital gains tax, for example, will have seen the dropping of that proposal asmmpat work.

It is time-consuming, though. Add the time sometimes taken to form a coalition, such as in 2017, when it held up the business of government. By the end of the second year of the term, parties start to move back into election mode. A four-year term would allow for two to three years of solid legislative work, with checks and balances in place.

Local Governmentnew Zealand also supports a move to four-year terms for local and regional councils, meaning alignment would be unaffected. There could be major savings over time in extending both terms.

The potential instability of Ardern’s coalition Government faced criticism from opponents in 2017, but it has remained intact for its full threeyear term. Would it have survived a four-year run, though? Would an extension risk adding instability to our politics? And more by-elections?

And what about the risk of a government quickly becoming electorally unpopular, as Boris Johnson’s one in Britain has on the back of its Covid-19 response?

This term debate wouldn’t get too far across the ditch. Australia has chopped and changed prime ministers regularly since the end of John Howard’s 11 years at the helm in 2007, but things have been more stable here.

Kiwis seem to like giving our governments a second term to prove themselves, a third if they’re performing well. You have to go back to 1975 to find a government voted out after just one term. That was the Labour government headed by Bill Rowling after the sudden death of the popular Norman Kirk.

There have been two previous referendums on this issue, in 1967 and 1990, but both times it was voted down. However, it seems an appealing idea just now.

What should follow as soon as possible is an independent investigation into the issue, with no political involvement. That could examine all the relevant issues to ensure it was the right move, rather than just the move the major parties want.

A four-year term would allow for two to three years of solid legislative work ...