Support for a four year term

March 1st, 2013 at 4:10 pm by David Farrar

I’ve just updated at Curiablog the full poll results from the One News Colmar Brunton poll and one of the issues they polled on was a four year term. The question they asked was:

“The current term of Government in New Zealand is three years, after which a general election is held.
Recently some politicians have suggested increasing the term from three to four years. Do you support
increasing the term of Government to four years?”

The results were:

  • 56% yes
  • 40% no

That is a welcome sign that a referendum in 2014 on the issue could succeed. I think it would be important that any change would not come into effect immediately but after the 2017 (or even 2020) election. That way it is not a poll on an extra year for the current Government.

The Parliamentary Library has also just published a research paper on parliamentary terms.

Tags: ,

28 Responses to “Support for a four year term”

  1. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    Give the buggers 4 years? No way. The whole point of 3 years is that they can achieve less. Not that this is stopping them. National has now taken it upon them to redefine marriage, and force the change upon the entire nation.

    I don’t want to imagine what they can do in 4 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. alex (301 comments) says:

    It would be interesting to see what the result would be if you asked “Do you support having less frequent elections, with the adoption of a 4 year term?”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Cunningham (817 comments) says:

    I hope the referendum is done as soon as 2014 so that it can be decided by 2017. Knowing the way these things work it will drag on and on. It should be 4 years in my opinion and the sooner a decision is made the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I’m not surprised this was suggested by ‘some politicians’. It’s primarily in their best interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    A constitutional monarchy, no Upper House, a leftist ratsnest for a Supreme Court, a piss useless wankfest for a constitution & the possibility that the insane Greens could be part of a government.

    I’ll be taking my pitchfork for a walk to Parliament if we look like being conned into a four year term.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jim (399 comments) says:

    “The whole point of 3 years is that they can achieve less”

    I don’t quite follow that argument. You want to freeze NZ in time? Rollback to the ’70s perhaps, when we had quality NZ-assembled cars like the Austin Princess and Morris Marina and laws to protect and subsidise the glorious NZ industry?

    70′s not far enough back?

    “National has now taken it upon them to redefine marriage…”

    That’s something that had cross-party support (and indeed even stronger support outside of National) so totally irrelevant to term of government.

    I’m not saying that I like every change – but I’d rather not wind back the clock, thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Mark (1,363 comments) says:

    One wonders whether the support among National supporters may wane somewhat if a Labour/Greens coalition were in power or looked likely to gain power. Four years of that sort of Government may well look like a very long time. Perhaps 4 years for National and 3 years if it is Labour/Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Cunningham (817 comments) says:

    “One wonders whether the support among National supporters may wane somewhat if a Labour/Greens coalition were in power or looked likely to gain power” but we may get one 4 year term of a Labour government rather then two 3 years terms!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. bringbackdemocracy (394 comments) says:

    Four year term and binding Citizens initiated referenda to hold them to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jim (399 comments) says:

    “binding Citizens initiated referenda “

    Unchecked populism with a media-orchestrated debate? Scary as hell.

    Might as well have binding Stuff/Herald polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ricardo (54 comments) says:

    Should be 4 years for National led governments, and 2 years for any others.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lucia Maria (2,208 comments) says:

    Four year term and binding Citizens initiated referenda to hold them to account.

    Or a voter veto of all except budget legislation or a way of voting (especially list MPs) out of parliament, to not return for that term.

    There has to be a quid pro quo transfer of power between us and Parliament. What is wrong with those 56% that they can’t see this. Too trusting, maybe?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jim (399 comments) says:

    “4 years for National led governments, and 2 years for any others.”

    You’re joking, but be careful what you wish for. The current govt has no balls. The 4th Labour govt (’84-’90) made a far bigger economic shift to the right than this National govt could ever stomach.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. JC (909 comments) says:

    Thats a bit of a pat on the back for National after 4 years in office. Bet you wouldn’t get the same result in a year or so.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (7,636 comments) says:

    With very few checks on our “cabinet dictatorship” form of govt a 3 year term is the one of the few balances that exist.

    Coincidently news from the Eastleigh by election in the UK says voters are getting massive attention from candidates. Isn’t it nice how thet crave our attention at election tme and then ignore us for the rest of the term while they ram their “progressive” agenda through while cynically thinking of us as “punters”.

    We need more referenda,not less general elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (7,636 comments) says:

    Talking of Eastleigh,Lib Dems retain the seat but

    Camoron’s con party has been beaten into 3 rd place by the UKIP!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9901609/Lib-Dems-win-Eastleigh-by-election-as-Tories-pushed-into-third-by-Ukip.html#disqus_thread

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Roflcopter (427 comments) says:

    The constitutional review being done at the moment has the term of parliament as one of it’s questions in Electoral Matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    Your point that the 4 year term should start with 2017 parliament is sound. Otherwise people might vote irrationally because they are pissed off with the Government. This should be a binding referendum for the 2014 election making the 2017 parliament a four year one. There should also be a fixed term. I presume John key will announce the election date next year during the PMs statement. Keeping everyone guessing also affects your own party organisation. How do they get ready if the date is u known. There is no tactical advantage as John key realised.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Steve (North Shore) (4,499 comments) says:

    Two years, then they perform. This is the Internet age, we don’t need the delaying tacticts that the Servants use.
    Let’s face it, the people in Govt are doing fine with other people’s money

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Four year term and binding Citizens initiated referenda to hold them to account.

    Agreed, with some provisos. Firstly, the petition is not funded by the taxpayer directly or indirectly as with the present petition,.

    Secondly, the issue is not something that was in a major party’s manifesto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Secondly, the issue is not something that was in a major party’s manifesto

    Chuck, I’ve concluded that party manifesto’s are rendered somewhat redundant, or at the least neutered, by MMP. No major party can go to the polls with a definite claim of what what plan to achieve because there’s always the ‘out’ of horse-trading when forming a coalition.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Honeybadger (150 comments) says:

    4 yrs? a whole 4 yrs of not being held accountable for what they do? you have to be kidding

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Innocent bystander (163 comments) says:

    I personally support a 4 year term but when push comes to shove the public will probably see any referendum as a referendum on politicians as they did with the change to MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    KK, I agree there are added problems with MMP. However, in the case of partial asset sales for example the voters were told what National would do if able. It is a different matter with homosexual marriage. It is a private members bill and certainly was not on National’s manifesto. If it was some people may have voted CP or NZF.

    We cannot have referenda for everything but we can on private members bills where there are conscience votes where half the MPs do not have an electorate to represent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I haven’t seen a compelling case made for a 4 year term. Surely it’s up to those who support a change to make their case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Has anyone actually thought about the effect of this on local elections, and the break from interdigitating three-year cycles?
    Does this mean 4-years for local and regional councils as well?
    No thanks.

    (God I love the word ‘interdigitating’ – only posted this comment to use it)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    So are we really talking about having election day every two years,
    local elections ♥♥♥♥ interdigitating ♥♥♥♥ with national elections,
    and replacing having elections two out of three years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Yoza (1,546 comments) says:

    Elections annually, make them sweat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.