Kerre Woodham: More MPs? I don't think so

I thought I'd start with the idea, the initiative, if you will, coming out of the think tank, the New Zealand Initiative. I love generally the work that they produce because even though you might not agree with the ideas that they put forward, there's generally a good discussion to be had. You hear the pros, you hear the cons, you think, mmm, okay. This one though, I'm not so sure.

Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: It's a hard no to four-year terms for me

I think it is significant that David Seymour has walked away from supporting his own bill to bring in four-year terms for the Government.

He was the one who introduced this bill - but he's now pulled ACT's support. Every other party in parliament appears to still back it, but he's pulled support because the safeguards that he wanted are gone.

Michael Reddell: Or Not

"Time has come for a four-year term of govt”, or so declared the editorial in yesterday’s Sunday Star-Times. I voted against the idea in the 1990 referendum, and would do so in any conceivable future referendum.

Max Salmon: Opposition for a four-year term

The election has come and gone. While Wellington sits in stasis awaiting Winston’s next press scrum, New Zealanders might be forgiven for feeling that we’ve only recently been here before.

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.