The Government has agreed to introduce legislation that would allow the parliamentary term to be extended to four years – subject to a referendum – Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.
Previously, coalition partners New Zealand First and ACT have both voiced support for four-year political terms, and the proposed Bill was modelled on the ACT Party’s draft Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill.
The current three-year limit is entrenched — meaning it can only be overturned through a supermajority in Parliament or a referendum.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has previously indicated the Government planned to propose a referendum for four-year Parliamentary terms at the next election, and has been critical of the current three-year term which he said pushed governments into short-term decision-making.
In an announcement today, Goldsmith said: “This means a standard term of Parliament will remain at three years, but with the ability to extend the maximum term of Parliament to four years.
“The main condition is that membership of certain select committees is calculated in a way that is proportionate to the non-Executive parliamentary party membership of the House.
“Both the National-Act and National-New Zealand First coalition agreements include supporting the Bill to select committee. At this stage, no decisions have been made on whether the Bill will proceed beyond this.”
Goldsmith said it was “possible a referendum could be held alongside the next General Election in 2026”.
“However, any final decisions on timing for a referendum will depend on what comes out of the select committee process.
“Future decisions will also need to be made by the Government as to whether the bill proceeds as introduced, or whether it should be amended.
New Zealanders were invited to share their opinions through the select committee process.
ACT responds
In a statement, ACT Leader David Seymour said he welcomed the announcement that legislation enabling a four-year Parliamentary term would advance to select committee.
He said the proposal ensured the term can only be extended if the Government turns control of select committees over to the opposition, which could give it more power to scrutinise and question Ministers, officials, and legislation.
“ACT’s proposal means such a significant constitutional change will only come into effect with the consent of New Zealanders. If the legislation is supported by Parliament, it will then be subject to a public referendum,” Seymour said.
“A four-year term will lead to more accountability and better law making, giving Kiwis more time to see whether political promises translate into results, so they can vote accordingly.”
Legal expert ‘encouraged’ by move
Otago University professor and legal expert Andrew Geddis told 1News he was “encouraged” by the Government’s announced legislation.
“The argument for longer terms is that it gives the Government more time to create policy and bed policy in, and then see if it’s working before going back to the voters to be judged.
“The counterargument is that in New Zealand, elections are pretty much the only way we have for keep out Government accountable. So, to extend the length of parliamentary term by a year gives Government’s an extra year before they have to come to the people to be judged.”
He said going in front of voters before an election was “pesky, it intervenes, it interferes” with Government plans, which he said was why many politicians support four-year terms.
“All of us are governed, so we do have to make the decision as to whether we want our governments to be able to do more for longer, or regularly hold them to account to make sure they’re doing what we want.”
Geddis noted that the Government said it would only take the Bill as far as select committee, with no guarantee beyond that.
“That maybe indicates there’s some division within the coalition parties as to what exactly this should look like. And in particular, what safeguards or protection should be put in place to make up for the fact that there will be a decrease in accountability because we just don’t get to vote as often.”
He said the debate in front of select committee would look at what else goes alongside the extended parliamentary term to make up for the decrease in Government accountability.
“The question is what kind of constraints you want to put alongside an extended parliamentary term, to try to create greater constraints in government, to hold them to account in between the periods of elections.”
