New Zealand has one of the world’s shortest parliamentary terms. There are familiar arguments in favour of increasing its length. Four-year terms would mean less spent on elections. Three-year terms mean election periods eat up one of every ten days that a government serves (before you adjust for sitting days). Short parliamentary terms constrain medium- and long-term policy thinking.
Nonetheless, longer terms are often seen as a beltway issue, endorsed by politicians but not something that energises voters. That perception was reinforced by referendums on extending term limits in 1967 and 1990. The public voted nearly 70% against on both occasions. Shorter terms may also constrain our parliament, which lacks constitutional checks on its power. Nonetheless, there is an underrated potential argument in favor of four-year terms – stronger opposition parties.
Since 1960, only one government has failed to win at least a second term, which lets opponents argue that we effectively have six-year terms. I would argue this may be the result of a flaw in our system, if we consider the political reality for parties entering opposition.
Incoming governments are said to have one year to acclimatise, one year to legislate, and one year to campaign. Perhaps we ought to have a similar model for the opposition: They have one year to stick with their old leader, one to pull out the knives, and one for their new leader to become electable.
Opposition instability is a growing issue. From 1993 to 2006, we had six Leaders of the Opposition. Over the same period from 2006 onwards, we have had eleven.
Often compounding the problems for parties newly relegated to opposition is a self-destructive culture of in-fighting and leaking and an inevitable departure of experienced MPs, unimpressed by the prospect of six years on the opposition benches.
Of course, benefits to the opposition from a longer term would be difficult to empirically establish, even via comparative analysis. Nonetheless, it remains an interesting idea in the debate around term length.
Three years may simply be too short a time for a new opposition to recover from defeat and regroup. While difficult to prove, it must be better than the constant knifing of the last two decades. New Zealand benefits when a government is challenged by a healthy and strong opposition.
Max Salmon is a Research Intern at the New Zealand Initiative. He joins as a generalist, with interests in education, infrastructure, and energy. This article was first published HERE
Since 1960, only one government has failed to win at least a second term, which lets opponents argue that we effectively have six-year terms. I would argue this may be the result of a flaw in our system, if we consider the political reality for parties entering opposition.
Incoming governments are said to have one year to acclimatise, one year to legislate, and one year to campaign. Perhaps we ought to have a similar model for the opposition: They have one year to stick with their old leader, one to pull out the knives, and one for their new leader to become electable.
Opposition instability is a growing issue. From 1993 to 2006, we had six Leaders of the Opposition. Over the same period from 2006 onwards, we have had eleven.
Often compounding the problems for parties newly relegated to opposition is a self-destructive culture of in-fighting and leaking and an inevitable departure of experienced MPs, unimpressed by the prospect of six years on the opposition benches.
Of course, benefits to the opposition from a longer term would be difficult to empirically establish, even via comparative analysis. Nonetheless, it remains an interesting idea in the debate around term length.
Three years may simply be too short a time for a new opposition to recover from defeat and regroup. While difficult to prove, it must be better than the constant knifing of the last two decades. New Zealand benefits when a government is challenged by a healthy and strong opposition.
Max Salmon is a Research Intern at the New Zealand Initiative. He joins as a generalist, with interests in education, infrastructure, and energy. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
All you say is true, but this country just could not have survived another year of the recent pernicious administration. The term is only one part of what needs to be a wholesale revision of government - not just ditching MMP but looking with fresh eyes at the stranglehold which party politics entails, retaining something of the adversarial system, but trying for concensus also - - and more and more. Could we trust any people to do this? Have we become too corrupt? It is worth a try.
You've forgotten the massive overweight elephant in the room - our shocking MSM.
Even a 4-year term wouldn't help a centre-right opposition. Luckily, or maybe that's the wrong word, our Left-wing governments are typically awful, surpassed in every way by the Ardern-Hipkins debacle, and even the voters can figure out they're not worth keeping, despite our craven media telling us otherwise.
Yes - think of the even greater damage if Labour had got 1 more year. Irreparable.
Another year to screw the country? No thanks.
Two years is plenty. Hold poor governments accountable and get rid of them quickly before they do more damage.
If you want four years, do good stuff in the first two years and then get voted in again.
I wouldn't have wanted to suffer another year of the last lot and I think there may have been more protests if we had to put up with them. Maybe we need a more co-operative approach, with Parties working together on more issues, especially the more pressing ones of health, education and social welfare.
Opposition politicians could spend their time on special learning programmes where they hone skills instead of fighting Party politics ad nauseum/infinitum. Name-calling and insults should carry heavy penalties as politicians should be required to be respectful role-models. Having people like Jamie-Lee Ross, who went from grasping pollie to brothel-keeper is not a great look National.
At this point in time the system doesn't support a four year term.
MC
Post a Comment