‘Hell of a rush to get stuff done’

The idea of four-year parliamentary terms reared its head this week, with MPs finding consensus around four-year elections instead of three, as long as it comes with added scrutiny of governments.

During a select committee hearing on Thursday, Leader of the House Chris Hipkins described the status quo as a ‘‘hell of a rush to get stuff done’’.

‘‘Four years would actually allow you to do things more properly and with greater scrutiny.’’

Sir Geoffrey Palmer visited Parliament this week, speaking primarily on threats to democracy, parliamentary scrutiny and urging an increase to the number of MPs.

During the select committee hearing, he brought up the four-year-term proposal.

‘‘You’ve got to go to a four-year-term,’’ he said, receiving murmur, chuckles and a ‘‘gee whiz’’ from MPs.

The idea has been tossed around for years, with the first referendum on extending the term in 1967 – with 68% against the proposal, repeated in 1990, that time 69% against.

Parliament would still need 75% support within the House to make the change. Palmer described it as ‘‘quite simple’’. ‘‘You have the power, you pass it by 75% majority [in Parliament]. I ran a referendum in 1990 about extending the term, it didn’t pass. But the problem is you don’t have to do it by referendum.

‘‘The trouble is, there is little courage involved in leading people to these conclusions which are necessary for the functioning of the system,’’ Palmer said.

Green MP Jan Logie said it was the case of the chicken and the egg – with Palmer moments before saying there was not enough scrutiny in Parliament, alongside recommending the term and power be increased.