![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In brief, the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill attempts to establish a 4-year term between national government elections, in exchange for giving non-government MPs a greater presence on select committees. This would come into effect should it pass a referendum to be held at one of the next two national elections.
And the official online submission form. Submissions close 1.00pm Thursday, 17 April 2025
If you want to draw on mine as inspiration for your own personalised submission go right ahead, but please write something unique, don't cut and paste from this without making it clear that you are quoting from another submission :)
I/We wish to make the following comments:
I oppose the introduction of a 4-year term to the Aotearoa/NZ Parliament.
When MMP was introduced the intent was that a party who got a minority of the vote would not be able to get a majority of seats and subsequently act arbitrarily against the wishes of the population. However as we have seen recently it is now feasible for a party which has even less of the vote that was typical under FPP to get controversial policies sped through as part of a coalition agreement. A longer term allows more time for this to happen without the government of the day being held to account.
A system of proportional representation was expected to usher in a change from oppositional two-party politics to co-operative multi-party politics. Unfortunately many New Zealand politicians don't yet seem to have got the memo.
Under MMP the way for a party to manage it's legislative agenda should be to make sure the parts of the agenda have broad cross-party support, such that it can be progressed regardless of which party or parties currently occupy the government benches, not hope to be part of a ruling[1] coalition for long enough to push legislation through. Being able to meaningfully progress legislation while in opposition also allows more time for the legislation to be scrutinised and feedback to be sought and incorporated. Sadly I consider it likely that a longer term will only encourage more of the latter thinking rather than the former.
While the Independent Electoral Review 2023 did recommend a referendum on the parliamentary term (R11), it explicitly stated that it was only one part of a package of recommendations (ref. 5.36) and that more alternative mechanisms to hold the government to account might be needed to make it palatable. The proposed legislation allows for a greater influence of non-government-bench MPs on select committees, but does not appear to bind them to follow the recommendations of said committees any more than at present. As such, this is no counterweight at all to the increased power a 4-year term would give a party intent on ruling[1] the country rather than governing it.
Finally, the current government has repeatedly expressed a desire to reduce costs. Given that the last general election encountered issues which can be attributed to the Electoral Commission already being under-resourced and the Electoral Commission has suffered it's share of additional lost resources as part of recent cost cutting, adding a referendum to the next general election without substantial extra resourcing seems likely to compromise both the election and the referendum.
[1] I observe that the difference between
"ruling" (as in "the ruling party") where those who hold the majority can simply enact what they want done regardless of the intent/expectations of the electorate, and
"governing" which should be regarded as far more about implementing and informing the intent/expectations of the electorate,
also seems to be lost on a significant number of politicians especially on the "right". Were more of our parliamentary representatives set on the latter I might have fewer reservations about a longer term.
I/We wish to make the following recommendations:
I recommend this legislation be dropped, or at least shelved until such time as pursuing it will not consume resources better spent elsewhere. Alternatively it needs to also give select committees the ability to reject legislation and stop its progression through Parliament.
And the official online submission form. Submissions close 1.00pm Thursday, 17 April 2025
If you want to draw on mine as inspiration for your own personalised submission go right ahead, but please write something unique, don't cut and paste from this without making it clear that you are quoting from another submission :)
I/We wish to make the following comments:
I oppose the introduction of a 4-year term to the Aotearoa/NZ Parliament.
When MMP was introduced the intent was that a party who got a minority of the vote would not be able to get a majority of seats and subsequently act arbitrarily against the wishes of the population. However as we have seen recently it is now feasible for a party which has even less of the vote that was typical under FPP to get controversial policies sped through as part of a coalition agreement. A longer term allows more time for this to happen without the government of the day being held to account.
A system of proportional representation was expected to usher in a change from oppositional two-party politics to co-operative multi-party politics. Unfortunately many New Zealand politicians don't yet seem to have got the memo.
Under MMP the way for a party to manage it's legislative agenda should be to make sure the parts of the agenda have broad cross-party support, such that it can be progressed regardless of which party or parties currently occupy the government benches, not hope to be part of a ruling[1] coalition for long enough to push legislation through. Being able to meaningfully progress legislation while in opposition also allows more time for the legislation to be scrutinised and feedback to be sought and incorporated. Sadly I consider it likely that a longer term will only encourage more of the latter thinking rather than the former.
While the Independent Electoral Review 2023 did recommend a referendum on the parliamentary term (R11), it explicitly stated that it was only one part of a package of recommendations (ref. 5.36) and that more alternative mechanisms to hold the government to account might be needed to make it palatable. The proposed legislation allows for a greater influence of non-government-bench MPs on select committees, but does not appear to bind them to follow the recommendations of said committees any more than at present. As such, this is no counterweight at all to the increased power a 4-year term would give a party intent on ruling[1] the country rather than governing it.
Finally, the current government has repeatedly expressed a desire to reduce costs. Given that the last general election encountered issues which can be attributed to the Electoral Commission already being under-resourced and the Electoral Commission has suffered it's share of additional lost resources as part of recent cost cutting, adding a referendum to the next general election without substantial extra resourcing seems likely to compromise both the election and the referendum.
[1] I observe that the difference between
"ruling" (as in "the ruling party") where those who hold the majority can simply enact what they want done regardless of the intent/expectations of the electorate, and
"governing" which should be regarded as far more about implementing and informing the intent/expectations of the electorate,
also seems to be lost on a significant number of politicians especially on the "right". Were more of our parliamentary representatives set on the latter I might have fewer reservations about a longer term.
I/We wish to make the following recommendations:
I recommend this legislation be dropped, or at least shelved until such time as pursuing it will not consume resources better spent elsewhere. Alternatively it needs to also give select committees the ability to reject legislation and stop its progression through Parliament.
