In this case, the joke is on New Zealand.
In February, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith confirmed that the government was shelving a referendum on extending the parliamentary term from three years to four. The reason? There was not enough time in the parliamentary calendar. The $25 million budgeted for the referendum would not be spent.
Goldsmith said his priorities lay elsewhere, in law and order. Apparently the most widely supported constitutional reform in a generation ranked below both.
National, Labour, ACT, the Greens and New Zealand First all broadly favoured a four-year term. No other reform can claim that kind of consensus across the House.
The select committee had done its work, stripping out ACT’s overcomplicated variable-term proposal and recommending a clean four-year maximum, subject to a binding referendum. Both the bill and the question were ready.
And then the three-year parliamentary treadmill ate up every hour that might have been spent stepping off it.
Three years is not enough time to run a modern parliament. Every government that takes office in Wellington proves it by reaching for urgency, whereby the House skips normal consultation and pushes bills through in single sittings.
David Farrar, the political commentator and pollster, recently crunched the numbers. In 2025, the House sat for 644 hours, well above the long-run average of 508. Of those hours, 32 per cent were under urgency, over 200 in total. Both figures are records.
The previous year was not far behind, at over 150 hours and 28 per cent of sitting time. Across this parliament, nearly 59 per cent of all bills have been touched by urgency in some form.
Yes, governments sometimes need to sit late and respond to emergencies. But when urgency bypasses select committees, the public loses any chance to submit on proposed laws. Drafting errors that would have been caught in committee sail through into statute unchecked.
Chris Bishop, the current Leader of the House, was an outspoken critic of Labour’s reliance on urgency when they were in power. He was right to be. The system that enabled Labour’s shortcuts, though, is the same system that now enables his.
Bishop has defended the government’s record by pointing to its legislative agenda and the limited hours in the normal sitting week. That is as much an honest defence as it is a confession.
Bishop himself holds six ministerial portfolios, from Transport to Housing to RMA Reform, while also running the government’s business in the House. A four-year term would not shrink his workload. It would, though, reduce the pressure to push everything through at once.
Urgency has become the norm for a parliament that gives itself too much to do and not enough time. Everyone knows the political timetable. In year one, ministers settle in, find their way around their ministries, and learn which levers connect to what. Year three belongs to the campaign. The twelve months in the middle is all that remains for anything ambitious.
A short parliamentary term not only squeezes ministers, but also hands too much power to the permanent bureaucracy.
Officials who disagree with a government’s direction need not oppose it openly. They can request further consultation, commission another round of analysis, raise process objections, refer the matter to another department.
That kind of foot-dragging would be a nuisance in a five-year parliament. In a three-year parliament, it can kill a reform stone dead. The most effective weapon the bureaucracy has against unwanted change is the calendar itself.
Voters rejected a four-year term in 1967 and again in 1990. Both times the political class failed to make a persuasive case. Any future government that revives the referendum will need to do far better.
New Zealand now has 43 departments, 28 ministers and 83 ministerial portfolios. That is roughly three times as many portfolios as comparable countries. Coalition government under the MMP electoral system slows every decision further. Managing all of that in three years while also passing laws and holding the executive to account is a task at which parliament is visibly failing.
Three decades of stalled reform and widening productivity gaps are what a country gets when no government lasts long enough to see a difficult policy through. Across 22 democracies studied over more than two decades, a 2024 paper in Public Choice found that significant reforms clustered after elections and grew markedly less likely as the next vote drew closer, regardless of their popularity.
New Zealand once was brave enough to pass bold democratic reforms. Women got the vote here before anywhere else. MMP was adopted in the 1990s when no other Westminster democracy had tried proportional representation on that scale. Now, that appetite for democratic experimentation seems to have dried up.
To be sure, a four-year term on its own would not fix everything. But combined with a larger parliament, a smaller cabinet and stronger select committees, it would at least give New Zealand a system capable of keeping up with the demands placed on it.
Australia and New Zealand are virtually alone in the developed world in clinging to three-year terms, and in neither country does the quality of government justify the arrangement.
Unlike Australia, where a constitutional referendum stands in the way, all that is required in New Zealand is a 75 percent majority vote in parliament or approval in a referendum. The groundwork has been laid. Whatever coalition emerges from November’s election should put it to voters at the first opportunity. They really should make time for it.
The democratic medicine is sitting on the shelf, prepared and ready. Somebody just needs to open the bottle.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
Goldsmith said his priorities lay elsewhere, in law and order. Apparently the most widely supported constitutional reform in a generation ranked below both.
National, Labour, ACT, the Greens and New Zealand First all broadly favoured a four-year term. No other reform can claim that kind of consensus across the House.
The select committee had done its work, stripping out ACT’s overcomplicated variable-term proposal and recommending a clean four-year maximum, subject to a binding referendum. Both the bill and the question were ready.
And then the three-year parliamentary treadmill ate up every hour that might have been spent stepping off it.
Three years is not enough time to run a modern parliament. Every government that takes office in Wellington proves it by reaching for urgency, whereby the House skips normal consultation and pushes bills through in single sittings.
David Farrar, the political commentator and pollster, recently crunched the numbers. In 2025, the House sat for 644 hours, well above the long-run average of 508. Of those hours, 32 per cent were under urgency, over 200 in total. Both figures are records.
The previous year was not far behind, at over 150 hours and 28 per cent of sitting time. Across this parliament, nearly 59 per cent of all bills have been touched by urgency in some form.
Yes, governments sometimes need to sit late and respond to emergencies. But when urgency bypasses select committees, the public loses any chance to submit on proposed laws. Drafting errors that would have been caught in committee sail through into statute unchecked.
Chris Bishop, the current Leader of the House, was an outspoken critic of Labour’s reliance on urgency when they were in power. He was right to be. The system that enabled Labour’s shortcuts, though, is the same system that now enables his.
Bishop has defended the government’s record by pointing to its legislative agenda and the limited hours in the normal sitting week. That is as much an honest defence as it is a confession.
Bishop himself holds six ministerial portfolios, from Transport to Housing to RMA Reform, while also running the government’s business in the House. A four-year term would not shrink his workload. It would, though, reduce the pressure to push everything through at once.
Urgency has become the norm for a parliament that gives itself too much to do and not enough time. Everyone knows the political timetable. In year one, ministers settle in, find their way around their ministries, and learn which levers connect to what. Year three belongs to the campaign. The twelve months in the middle is all that remains for anything ambitious.
A short parliamentary term not only squeezes ministers, but also hands too much power to the permanent bureaucracy.
Officials who disagree with a government’s direction need not oppose it openly. They can request further consultation, commission another round of analysis, raise process objections, refer the matter to another department.
That kind of foot-dragging would be a nuisance in a five-year parliament. In a three-year parliament, it can kill a reform stone dead. The most effective weapon the bureaucracy has against unwanted change is the calendar itself.
Voters rejected a four-year term in 1967 and again in 1990. Both times the political class failed to make a persuasive case. Any future government that revives the referendum will need to do far better.
New Zealand now has 43 departments, 28 ministers and 83 ministerial portfolios. That is roughly three times as many portfolios as comparable countries. Coalition government under the MMP electoral system slows every decision further. Managing all of that in three years while also passing laws and holding the executive to account is a task at which parliament is visibly failing.
Three decades of stalled reform and widening productivity gaps are what a country gets when no government lasts long enough to see a difficult policy through. Across 22 democracies studied over more than two decades, a 2024 paper in Public Choice found that significant reforms clustered after elections and grew markedly less likely as the next vote drew closer, regardless of their popularity.
New Zealand once was brave enough to pass bold democratic reforms. Women got the vote here before anywhere else. MMP was adopted in the 1990s when no other Westminster democracy had tried proportional representation on that scale. Now, that appetite for democratic experimentation seems to have dried up.
To be sure, a four-year term on its own would not fix everything. But combined with a larger parliament, a smaller cabinet and stronger select committees, it would at least give New Zealand a system capable of keeping up with the demands placed on it.
Australia and New Zealand are virtually alone in the developed world in clinging to three-year terms, and in neither country does the quality of government justify the arrangement.
Unlike Australia, where a constitutional referendum stands in the way, all that is required in New Zealand is a 75 percent majority vote in parliament or approval in a referendum. The groundwork has been laid. Whatever coalition emerges from November’s election should put it to voters at the first opportunity. They really should make time for it.
The democratic medicine is sitting on the shelf, prepared and ready. Somebody just needs to open the bottle.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.