Editorial : Three years, or four?

Last updated 10:04 13/12/2012

Relevant offers

Opinion

Cracks show in drug crackdown Consequences not just from the court Christianity: a persecuted religion Editorial: A review worth having Editorial: No time to hide on climate change Letters to the editor Siege puts focus on new law Land takeover audit a positive step Simple remedy in a digital age is to look up Letters to the editor

TVNZ's Q+A audience was treated to a rare spectacle at the weekend: politicians of four different stripes agreed with each other that a three-year parliamentary electoral term is too short.

Australia has a three-year term, too, but Germany, Denmark and Japan are among several countries with four-year terms. Britain, Canada and France are among those that keep theirs going for five years.

Most countries have an upper house and other mechanisms to keep their governments in check. We can hold a government to account only through the ballot box, so a longer electoral term would give more power to the executive and less to the people.

But MMP's proportional representation has provided a more effective safeguard against executive abuse than first-past-the-post did, and the electorate re-endorsed this at the referendum last year.

Many sound reasons can be advanced in favour of a longer electoral term, as Mainfreight chief executive Don Braid pointed out on Q+A when invited to put one big idea to a panel of politicians. He noted that we and the Aussies are competing with countries with four- and five-year terms, which enable their governments to make longer-term and better policy decisions. We get short-term populist policies, "which in turn is giving us a twisted and poor-performing economy". The hard calls we need are sometimes avoided.

NZ First leader Winston Peters, UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne, Justice Minister Judith Collins and Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei all saw merit in four-year terms. Ms Collins said three years was a long time in opposition but it took a year in government to get a start on what needed to be done, a year to consolidate, and the third year was spent campaigning on everything done so far. This was "simply not long enough". Four years would be much better.

Most importantly, Ms Collins said the public have to vote on the matter. She's right. The issue was put to a vote in 1990, when 69 per cent of those who voted rejected the idea. But the electorate then had just been riled by a Labour government which, most notably in its second term, treated public opinion with disdain.

The introduction of MMP is one of many changes since then, and it could be time to have another discussion about the parliamentary term.

Ad Feedback

- The Marlborough Express

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content