Imagine asking a CEO to transform a struggling company but giving them just enough time to redecorate the office before facing shareholders again. This is essentially what we do with our three-year parliamentary terms.  

The Government's introduction of a Bill enabling a four-year term is a once in a generation opportunity for change. The three-year term has been in place since the 19th century, but it is increasingly out of step with the complex challenges facing modern government, including the demands of the MMP electoral system. It is also unusually short by international standards. Most comparable democracies operate on four or five-year terms. Australia is also thinking about moving from three to four years.  

A three-year term creates a perpetual cycle where the first year is spent establishing government, the second implementing policy, and the third campaigning for re-election. Under MMP, the problem has intensified. Coalition negotiations and the complexity of multi-party governance consume precious time.  

Important reforms require careful consultation, drafting, implementation, and assessment, processes that rarely fit neatly into a three-year window. The pressure is on governments, including the current one, to ram through major policy changes. This might be lessened under a four-year term. 

The Bill provides for the standard term to remain three years. It makes extending it to four years subject to select committee membership being proportional to MPs that are not in the executive. This will give opposition parties majorities on committees, addressing concern that longer terms might reduce government accountability. In the absence of a second chamber, this compromise is sensible, but the Bill’s provisions are complex and a recipe for uncertainty. A much simpler approach would be to extend the term to four years and, at the same time, amend Parliament’s Standing Orders for select committees. 

If the Bill passes, a referendum would be held. Recent polling suggests support for four-year terms is significantly higher than previous referendums in 1967 and 1990 which strongly favoured retaining three-year terms. This sentiment is reinforced by real-life election results. There has not been a single-term government since that of 1972-75. They were also rare before then. It is almost as though we have a six-year term. 

Four years is not universally supported by my colleagues, but I like the idea. Just as no business leader would accept a tenure too brief to deliver meaningful results, New Zealand deserves governance that is not hamstrung by the ticking clock of an imminent election. 

Submissions on the Bill close on 17 April. I would be interested to hear what people think.