Would these benefits provide for a better-performing government?
We know governments need time to get things done. It could be that three years is in reality too short to do anything constructive and beneficial for the citizens of New Zealand.
I think that's a compelling enough reason to make the change from three years to four.
I suppose if you're the opposition you wouldn't support a move to four years but that is just self-interest. It's about time governments started to think about what's in the best interests of New Zealand, rather than their own political survival interests.
In opposition, you can do all the planning you want but once you're the Government just coming to grips with the Treasury's books and becoming familiar with the workings of each government department takes time.
I presume the departmental briefings for the incoming government are helpful.
But for the opposition, a government can at times be quite obstructive.
They will usually only share on a "need-to-know" basis.
They're not going to make it easy for the opposition to take pot shots.
Our voting system - MMP - may have changed some things, more diverse political parties, but being open, transparent and prepared to share timely information with other political parties, is not necessarily high on any government's engagement strategy.
That's probably a good enough reason for opposition parties to put a spoke in government's work by delaying the progress of Bills and priority projects.
It all takes time but when there's a change in government people are impatient to see the promised changes delivered.
If only it was that simple. We saw during the last government a Labour coalition government in which New Zealand First didn't hesitate to apply the handbrake to the government's plans, including Auckland's light rail, capital gains tax and rent relief for landlords.
If New Zealand First didn't like what it heard it would block, change or axe altogether the Government's plans.
The countries with governments that have four-year parliamentary terms include: Canada, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
Singapore, the UK and France all have five-year terms.
I think these countries must have cottoned on to the fact that all progress takes a decent amount of time to achieve what was promised.
I think citizens are prepared to wait if they can see progress is being made.
If New Zealand was to have four-year terms, and the government got re-elected for a second term, that's eight years to really make a dent in the social and economic changes New Zealand needs to make.
After eight years, I would probably be up for a government change by that time.
Fresh ideas and new faces. If you know you have four years you can get cracking, be bold and make the big changes that sometimes get bogged down, ground down and end up in the too-hard basket.
Developing new policies, drafting and introducing new legislation, undertaking reviews and completing major projects can be painstakingly slow.
It's been this way for decades and doesn't seem to be improving. Moving from a three- to four-year parliamentary term may make all the difference.
With Covid-19 snapping at the Government's heels for the past two years, this has stalled a fair amount of the much-touted change programme.
I think it's now time for the Government to recommit to its promised wellbeing focus.
The cost of living has increased sharply, with inflation running at a 30-year high.
This has happened all around the world so the Government isn't to blame for that.
But our economic recovery must get under way as soon as possible. It is essential to addressing wellbeing.
The two are interdependent. Next month's budget has a lot riding on it for the government.
- Merepeka Raukawa-Tait has worked in the private, public and non-profits sectors. Today she writes, broadcasts and is a regular social issues commentator on TV. Of Te Arawa, Merepeka believes fearless advocacy for equity and equality has the potential to change lives.
