The Act Party campaigned that three years is too short to
implement effective policy. Party leader David Seymour even drafted a bill for a referendum. The policy was written into Act’s coalition agreement.
The bill considered by the Justice Committee was based on Seymour’s draft. Yet, when the committee reported back, Act alone had its vote recorded in opposition.
Act recognises that New Zealand has no written constitution and very few checks on executive power. Our Parliament can, and has, passed laws with breathtaking speed.
A bill to increase MPs’ superannuation once went through all stages in just seven minutes.
The only real check is the Electoral Act, which requires an election every three years.
Seymour’s original bill tried to address this. It proposed that Parliament’s term would remain three years unless all select committees were chaired by the Opposition. Only then would the term be extended to four years.
But the Clerk of the House and other submitters pointed out that even this was no real safeguard.
A Government can bypass select committees whenever it chooses. The other parties voted to strip out the Opposition-chair condition.
The referendum will now simply offer the choice to extend the parliamentary term to four years.
The committee’s report quotes Act as saying that “a four-year term without stronger opposition powers at select committees tips the balance too far in favour of the Government of the day”.
On that point, Act is right.
Even with stronger select committees, extending the parliamentary term would weaken democratic accountability.
Having stood for Parliament 10 times, I know why MPs favour fewer elections. Campaigns are stressful. Time, money and volunteers are never enough. Everything comes down to a single day.
A malicious lie can tip the result. Three-year terms mean MPs start campaigning for re-election on election night.
But the idea that politicians would make better decisions if they were less accountable is not only profoundly anti-democratic, it is simply wrong.
If politicians knew they would not face voters for four years, they would feel freer to make bad decisions as well as good ones.
In Government, a way to kill a bad policy proposal is to remind voters how many days there are to the election and to ask, “how can this be defended on the hustings?”
The closer to the election, the more effective it is at killing bad ideas.
The claim that three years prevents good policy does not stand up. It is 50 years since any New Zealand Government has lasted just three years.
Most serve at least six – and often nine. That is more than enough time to develop and implement policy. The United Kingdom has five-year terms. No one argues that the quality of its policy is better.
Shorter terms often produce better Government. The Roman Republic lasted five centuries with consuls serving just one year. Roman democracy was destroyed when ambitious leaders extended their terms.
We do have a problem with electing Governments that have no practical, workable, solutions.
In 2018, National claimed the Ardern Government set up 152 working groups or inquiries.
Labour said the real figure was 38.
Either way, an extra year in Government just rewards parties that have in Opposition skipped the hard work of policy development.
A short parliamentary term helps fight procrastination. Norman Kirk called it “paralysis by analysis”. The bureaucracy response to every issue is to write a report.
Only never having more than three years before an election is a constant motivation to act.
When the civil service offered to write yet another report, I would say: “We already have reports and solutions.”
I would quote General George S. Patton: “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
Take the reform of our state trading departments. In just three years, we turned 21 loss-making departments into efficient state-owned enterprises, a model since copied around the world.
With a four-year term, it would have taken four years. Parkinson’s Law applies in politics too: “Work expands to fill the available time.”
For half a century, our politicians have avoided tackling the hard issues, our demographic time-bomb, poor productivity, declining standards in education and the crisis in health. A four-year term will not suddenly make politicians courageous.
Extending the term of Parliament will just make it even easier to put off taking essential policy decisions.
Sir Keith Holyoake had it right: “Three years is long enough for a good Government and three years too long for a bad one”.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
