Listener on four year term
August 30th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe Listener editorial:
New Zealand’s electoral cycle is too short. Since 1935 there have been only two single-term governments. The second Labour Government (1957-60) was hammered for its infamous Black Budget, and the third Labour Government (1972-75) had the misfortune of leader Norman Kirk dying in office and being replaced by the less popular Bill Rowling.
There is no single reason that voters usually give the government a second term, but it is possible to speculate on the reasons. One is that the public thinks three years is insufficient time for the new incumbents to prove themselves. Changing the course of a heavily laden ship of state is a slow business, whichever direction you point it. Three years is a short time in which to judge the success or failure of complex new policies. Another reason may simply be that generally public fatigue takes longer than three years to set in. Also, voters may not want another big round of change visited on the country so soon after the last round.
I agree that the length of the term is why so few Governments get tossed out after one term. It is interesting that no National Government has ever failed to get a third term.
Ministers in a new government spend the first year getting to grips with their portfolios. Currently, the third year is dominated by its re-election chances, with only relatively timid policy changes. That leaves precious little time in between to do anything, particularly on important matters that require a lot of consultation or that might be unpopular. A four-year term would allow governments more chance to get things done that often should be done, but are neglected.
This is the strongest argument for change. A 33% increase in the parliamentary term would lead to 100% increase in time for quality policy development etc.
August 30th, 2011 at 11:07 am
I think the idea has merit, but voters will want to keep politicians on as short a leash as possible (given past betrayals), so it is unlikely to gain public support.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:12 am
A change from 1-in-3 years being the time for quality policy development to 2-in-4 years is not a 100% increase, it’s a 50% increase.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:16 am
I support a move to a four year electoral cycle.
But I think it needs to be moderated by introducing term limits.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:20 am
I support a change to 4 years with no term limits.
The public is quite capable of moderating the term limits.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:21 am
The US has two-year terms in the house of representatives. That leaves them with no time for quality policy.
But I don’t think single-term governments are something we should really aim for.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Before getting too carried away, reflect on what might have been after 3 x 4 years of Klerk & Co and the fact that they got the arse for pretty well no other reason than John Key. Does anyone really think that the yellow canary and the Don would have been able to see off Klerk? English? They tried and failed and lost an election they should have won. Anyone else?
Courtesy of P Holmes and the worm, fungusface et al, and what passes for political reporting nowadays, we are now a nation of soundbite junkies with the attention span of a small knat with a very poor attention span.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:34 am
I believe there has already been a referendum on this issue before and it was not approved. (please correct me if I am wrong)
I don’t see this policy nice as it is becoming law.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:38 am
reflect on what might have been after 3 x 4 years of Klerk & Co
But there’s a high chance it would have been only 2 x 4 years, one year less than they had.
A four year term makes sense to me.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:39 am
A 33% increase in the parliamentary term would lead to 100% increase in time for quality policy development etc.
Anything voters can do to avoid govt making more regulations has got to be good. It is three years because people such as Rob Muldoon and Helen Clark (and John Key on smacking and ETS) DO NOT LISTEN to the public.
Elections force politicians to listen.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:40 am
“Quality” policy developments
2007 – Electoral Finance Act, Section 59 Anti-Smacking.
2010 – Foreshore and Seabed.
Anyone interested in 2 year terms?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Lofty said:
“The public is quite capable of moderating the term limits.”
—
I was referring to term limits for individual members, not Governments.
A maximum service of three terms of four years seems reasonable to me.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:45 am
A longer term fine but if it’s to be the people of New Zealand should have in place a system where they can recall their politicians, in other words sack the mongrels should they become total a holes. Perhaps a recall could be called if 1/3 of the voters signed a referendum.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Ah ok Gump, in that case I can agree with you, in fact wholeheartedly support that stance.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:48 am
I disagree.
The opinion writer sounds in favour of more one term governments but is arguing that this would bring greater productivity. I believe you’d get greater turnover of administrations and less productivity over a 4-8 year cycle. “Changing the course of a heavily laden ship of state is a slow business, whichever direction you point it.” That’s a bit of an own goal of an argument. It’s going to be harder to change course after 4 years than 3. What loss in productivity there? You’d have to look at the likely effects of two different one term governments.
ie
Graeme Edgeler (2,039) Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:12 am
This is the strongest argument for change. A 33% increase in the parliamentary term would lead to 100% increase in time for quality policy development
A change from 1-in-3 years being the time for quality policy development to 2-in-4 years is not a 100% increase, it’s a 50% increase.
@Graeme Edgeler
Vote:What you might find in a four year cycle is 2-in 8 -years for quality policy development and constant campaigning for the next round of elections. Currently you’d by the same token get 2 in 6 years for quality policy development.
August 30th, 2011 at 11:49 am
id be happy to see 4 year terms. would sting though if the greens had some ministers or some such.
bob – recall would need to be higher than 33% me thinks
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Some MPs give excellent value for decades, some never do. The public can decide for themselves which are which.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I think we first need to be rid of the way our currrent system reduces policy to barganing chips to be picked up, modified (castrated) or discarded in negotiation, which in efect makes a mockery of voting based on policy as the whole bloody thing is fluid!
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:55 am
One term maximum would be better. Then there is less emphasis on The Leader and more on the government as a whole (or, perhaps fancifully, the policies!)
It works for Switzerland.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Some MPs give excellent value for decades, some never do. The public can decide for themselves which are which.
True, but with high-ranking list MPs we still can’t get rid of them when we don’t like them. Eg Michael Cullen.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Indeed. 2/6 to 3/6.
[DPF: I meant doubles the amount of quality time per term of parliament, but didn't express it that way]
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Proposals to extend the parliamentary term to 4 years have been defeated twice by referendum, with about 2 thirds voting against. There is no reason to suppose the result would be any different today.
If the term extension is proposed as part of the constitutional review it might have a chance of success as part of a wider package, although I’m not at all sure that the review process will actually lead to any definite proposals for change.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I would like to see a fixed term with the election date known at least at the beginning of the final year of the parliament like what John Key did this year. He may well have established an important constitutional principal. AS for 4 years I simply do not see the public agreeing to this. I suspect some hard decisions are already in the pipeline ready for next year – some will have a specific mandate. This is the correct way to manage this. In practice most Governments can expect two terms which is 6 years which is ample time to implement things.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Only with open lists, or STV.
MMP without open lists, and SM both have list MPs, and PV and FPP have safe electorates (which SM does too, and MMP, but to a lesser extent, because the electorate vote largely doesn’t matter).
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
We bemoan the politics of personality, but this is the only atribute which is constant (unless you’re Phill Goff and have no palpable personality) and idicative of the buy-in level displayed by a considerable portion of the electorate. People will become more invested in policy when the policy is seen to be adhered to, but I can’t see that happening under MMP.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
PG, imagine if there had been no Key is the point.
It could all happen again and in any event, you can’t assume National would have won at the end of year 8. Remember that Winston the Cunt didn’t completely disintegrate until year 9.
The other point that I should have made is this.
For a country the size of NZ and with the size of NZ’s parliament, requiring a four year election cycle in order to ensure that things get done is bollocks. The reason that things have not “got done” in the past is nothing more than a reflection on the quality of the gummints we elect.
There will be plenty of Actoids who will, stupidly, say this government has done nothing. In reality, they have made change, and done the work to campaign on future change, in a host of areas that represent cornerstones in NZ turning away from our recent history. They hit the ground running and I would actually doubt whether Key would say they haven’t had long enough. He is quite happy to go back to the electorate with his next batch of changes.
His government evidences that if you have some people on board with ability and intelligence, and you are prepared to slap your officials around the ears and kick some public service arse you can get things done. He doesn’t have many in the standout talent basket, but he has had enough to make a sigificant dent within our 3 year cycle.
For the benefit of you Actoids who will be foaming and chortling, contrast with the little yellow canary: telephone booth caucus revolt, 3 strikes plus handing Auckland on a plate to an idiot. Then your party taken over by someone who wasn’t even a member. You can argue that the current gummint should have done more but its done all Key had in mind at the outset. Check out the inside of your own tent before you wander over to piss on someone else’s. There will be another centre-right gummint this year. If you had had your way, you would be looking at Goof.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
It is three years because people such as Rob Muldoon and Helen Clark (and John Key on smacking and ETS) DO NOT LISTEN to the public.
Funnily enough, the best argument I’ve heard against extending the electoral cycle comes from Rob.
Many years ago when the issue was raised, he made the point that a PM could:
- have a good policy idea over breakfast
- get their staff to type up the relevant documents by 9am
- force it through caucus before lunch
- introduce it in the house in the afternoon
- pass the legislation under urgency by 7pm
- and have the Gov-General sign it off by 9pm that night
His point was that, by western standards, the turn-around time for legislation can be lightening-fast. Why on earth would you want to extend the opportunity and time to engage in this sort of law making, before the public hava a ‘referendum’ on your performance?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Four years. No, and hell no! Term limits. Good idea. Six terms for an MP, and two consecutive terms for a PM. Also all party lists submitted to party members for approval.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
DPF: A 33% increase in the parliamentary term would lead to 100% increase in time for quality policy development etc.
Quality? What quality policy has National exactly launched in these three years? ETS? The tax cut that wasn’t? GST increase?
No way a government should get more than 3 years. The fact they get to do exactly nothing in their 3rd year is a bonus!
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Ahh the liberal mind — constantly innovating, constantly changing for the sake of change, always restless and seeking some new novelty.
The first point of legislation, from a sensible Conservative point of view, is “do no harm”. Now can anyone see any harm in there being a four-year term? Let’s take the last government. Imagine four years of them? Then another four years of them? Then another four years of them?
Can anyone possibly imagine the harm to the nation of 12 years of the labour socialist/feminist/gay-rights/spend up large regime of those incredibly long nine years? 12 years of Helen Clark! 12 years of bribing the electorate? Ever increasing handouts? God only knows what new abominations they would have dreamt up in three more years of office.
In short — I am happy with a three-year term thanks.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
New Zealand is one of the few western democracies with no checks or balances such as a written constitution, a second house or binding referenda. I would favour a four year term with a Swiss style voter’s veto. There is no way that legislation opposed by over 80% of the voters should be enacted. It should not become law if challenged by a petition of say 50,000 within 90 days until it is passed by a binding referendum. It might be reasonable to require a super majority.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Four year term – good idea. I wonder what drove our early politicians to adopt a three year cycle. A four year term would be much better for policy developmetn and roll out.
Limited number of terms – NO. Let the voters decide. Could we end up with a Russian situation where a two term PM steps into another role, but still with a significant power base and level of control?
As to the argument above that a four year term would mean 3 x 4 terms for “Klerk”. I wonder if that would have happened? I think it more likely that with the policies adopted by that governnment that a 2 x 4 term was more likely. That means the actual term of that Labour government would have been 8 years and not 9. Alternatively the policies would havbe been different due to the ability to better develop those policies.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I think you’re right. It’s not the term that’s the problem, it’s the way the term is used by government. If they carried on right through their third year as if the meant business rather than dance for the upcoming election we’d get better government – and they’d probably be better supported.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Am totally against a 4 year term.
My guess is the reason governments get a second term is that the voters kicked out the last lot and they still don’t look like a credible alternative. Give the other side enough time, they regroup, look votable and then the annoyed voters kick out the current lot thinking the new revitalised politicians might be better.
Same hydra, different heads.
We need controls on government, not free reign to do more damage over a longer term.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
What about extending Chuck Birds idea. A four year term with a referedum after 2 years. If 50% plus say they want an election then its held within 6 months. And the 4 year clock starts over again at that point.
Vote:It would keep the encumbents on their toes and 50% plus is a high hurdle to require an election.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Yes to a four year term, but it should only be done in concert with other changes, including the possibility of an upper house restricted to those aged over 45-50 with veto power.
I like Chuck’s idea of a referendum.
I agree with you Lucia that we need more controls on government, especially to stop them implementing radical social change without a mandate, but our current three year term provides no real control now, as we saw under the Clark regime, and we need politicians to get out of the habit of short term thinking and electoral self-interest.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Current system works, cos you can get 6 or 9 by re-electing, but only 3 for a bad government. 4, 8, 12 is just too long. DPF, be interesting to set these figures against the average term (in years) of PMs since Seddon. I suspect it would mean alot more transitional leaders mid-term, and therefore greater political instability if we had the 4, 8, 12 scenario.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
As the article says only 2 governments have had a single terms, so unless you are completely useless you get at least 6years.
Yes half the 3rd year is wasted in election mode, but you don’t lose the 4th year coming up to speed.
Therefore a 3 year term normally means 3 of 6 (50%) in terms of productivity (or 5 of 9).
4 year term is 2 of 4 or 5 of 8.
So really there is not a lot of advantage of 4years in terms of productivity and a large loss of control for the public. Therefore = dead duck.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
The problem remains not the electoral system but the power concentrated in the hands of Cabinet.
Cabinet and the Whips control everything.
Take away whipping and add referenda if you need but as long as Whips are there and Parliament recognises their athuority as Chief Bullies, then no one is properly represented by their MP.
He has to by tradition or by force vote as his party decides.
Referendum and new systems won’t chnage that and neither will any politican debate this issue.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
LSM, it looks like you are referring to some form of recall as practiced in some US states. I believe it requires a petition to trigger it.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Chuck not so much a recall as a half term report like we used to get at school in the old days. In my scenario there would be a referendum at 24 months with electioneering allowed in the 90 days before the referendum.
So its a report card on the Government. Using electronic voting methods via cell phones laptops desk tops etc would be a relatively inexpensive excercise.
IMHO a low vote for an election would help the encumbent Government by giving them the confidence to press on with their policy programmes knowing that had a strong mandate.
If it was close to the 50% then they would have to think about their policy programme settings.
The current polls IMHO dont give enough coverage to provide a clear outcome and dont have the gravitas of a referendum. Maybe hust maybe it might get more citizens involved in the process and raise the current appalling state of political and governance illiteracy we have now.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Very good idea LSM.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 1:38 am
It takes time for a new Government to implement policy so a 4 year term would mean policy work is being implemented during year 3 – possibly. Nothing gets done in year 4. Which means that if it is not ready by year 3 it gets implemented in year 5. With a 3 year term that allows 3 years for the policy work to be done with implementation in year 4 – post election. I simply do not think a 4 year term gives much advantage. It means policy development can occur over 3 years instead of 2 under a 4 year term.
Vote: