A four-year term for Parliament would be ‘recipe for chaos’ - Richard Prebble

All parties except Te Pati Māori support the bill enabling a four-year parliamentary term. Photo / Mark Mitchell

THREE KEY FACTS

• All parties except Te Pati Māori support the bill enabling a four-year parliamentary term.
• The bill allows a four-year term if the Opposition chairs parliamentary committees, raising concerns.
• A recent poll shows 40% support for a four-year term, with 30% opposed and 30% unsure.

Would Sir Robert Muldoon’s Government have been better with four-year terms?

All the political parties in Parliament, except Te Pāti Māori, have voted in favour of the Term of Parliament (Enabling four-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Despite the title, the bill does not automatically change the term of Parliament from three years to four. Instead, the bill enables the Government to extend its term to four years provided the Opposition chairs the parliamentary committees.

In principle the bill is wrong. Politicians should not be able to make a deal with the Opposition to extend their time in power.

In practice, having the Opposition chair select committees is a recipe for chaos.

An unprincipled Opposition, protected from defamation, could turn the select committees into Star Chambers - a form of court in England that sat without a jury and became known for its severe punishments.

The behaviour of Congressional committees in the United States is often outrageous.

Governments would quickly develop parliamentary tactics to avoid scrutiny by select committees.

The Opposition chairing select committees is not a justification to extend the term of Parliament.

The bill is at a select committee for submissions. Based on the first reading debate, it appears that a majority of Members of Parliament support a four-year parliamentary term.

A recent poll by Horizon indicated 40% of voters would favour a four-year term, while 30% would vote against it and a further 30% were unsure.

I think the committee will amend the bill to hold a referendum extending the term to four years.

The Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, introduced the bill as a part of National’s coalition agreement with Act. The minister set out the arguments.

For: In the first year, the government is establishing itself. Second, effectively governing. The third year is spent campaigning. Issues like infrastructure require a longer term.

Against: There are almost no checks on the New Zealand government except that it must seek a new mandate every three years.

Parkinson’s law, that work expands to fit the time available, is true for Government. Give politicians another year and they will take longer to do the same amount of work.

The knowledge that the Government must account to the electorate in three years is a huge incentive to make decisions.

The Australian state governments have all moved to a four-year term. I have seen no evidence that decision-making is better.

My visit to Westminster leads me to believe that the British five-year term leads to procrastination. British ministers were incredulous that we were able to do port reform in three years.

The US Congressional two-year term is the reason that Trump is moving so decisively.

A three-year government can be effective if politicians have done thorough policy work while in Opposition. Sir Roger Douglas was a remarkable reformer because of his policy work.

In Opposition, Sir Roger published a best-selling book There’s Got to be a Better Way! A Practical ABC to Solving New Zealand’s Major Problems.

The Ardern/Hipkins Government achieved almost nothing due to minimal policy development while in Opposition. Chris Hipkins has announced Labour will campaign on the intrinsically conservative promise of providing “stable government”.

It seems Labour will not be producing: ”A Practical ABC to Solving New Zealand’s Major Problems”.

If this coalition fails it will not be because it did not have long enough but because it took too long. The coalition knew when it was elected that:

• Government spending was out of control
• The Resource Management Act (RMA) is a disaster
• The supermarket duopoly makes excessive profits

In this year’s Budget, the media reports that the Finance Minister will have a “bonfire of the vanity projects”. Her Budget last year must have funded these vanity projects.

The minister has ruled out abolishing any of New Zealand’s 32 departments, ministries and agencies. The way to permanently reduce spending is to abolish the agencies that are themselves vanity projects.

The Prime Minister has sternly demanded local government stick to the basics. It is advice that he should also apply to central Government.

Ministers have just published an excellent paper on their proposed RMA replacement. It has taken ministers 16 months. To pass the new planning laws these decisions needed to be made last year.

The Finance Minister is only now seeking advice on splitting up the grocery chains. Action was needed 12 months ago.

A three-year term has failed to motivate the coalition into making timely decisions that it knows are necessary. Having another year would just result in more procrastination.

The Roman consuls had one-year terms. They created an empire.

Three years is long enough for a good government and three years too long for a bad one.