Four or three years? What you need to know about the push to lengthen parliamentary terms

Explainer - New Zealand's government is a relative rarity on the global stage, where we select the make-up of our Parliament every three years.

But there's broad support across parties to change that, with a bill coming up for a second reading that would call for a public referendum - should Parliament have a four-year term or stick to three?

So how likely is it to pass, and why do politicians want to change things? Here's where it stands today.

What's all this about four-year terms, then?

The coalition government introduced legislation earlier this year on a four-year Parliamentary term, which would then be voted on in a referendum.

The referendum would be held alongside either of the next two general elections from after the law took effect - so, most likely 2026 or 2029. If the public backed the referendum, the change would apply from 30 October 2031.

Why four years instead of three?

New Zealand - along with Australia - is a bit of an outlier with three-year parliamentary terms. Four or five-year terms are far more common.

The arguments are that the current term is too short for a government to accomplish its goals, with the first year settling in and the third year all about gearing up for another campaign.

On the other hand, those wary of allowing longer terms say New Zealand lacks certain checks and balances on government power other countries have, such as a Supreme Court that can strike down legislation or an upper house like the senate in Australia and the United States or Britain's House of Lords.

Who supports it?

Actually, just about every political party, although ACT is currently against some of the ways it may be implemented.

Introducing legislation on a four-year term was part of the coalition agreements between National, ACT and New Zealand First, with the three parties agreeing to support it to the select committee stage.

"Elections are expensive so it will save money and get better long-term outcomes for our country," New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said last year in backing the effort.

ACT party leader David Seymour opposed some of the changes the select committee has proposed to requirements the party wanted, including measures intended to ensure "stronger checks and balances are built into the system to prevent an erosion of democratic accountability".

The Green Party has backed the idea of a four-year term with some reservations while Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins has also said he supports a four-year term.

"I think a four-year term would actually allow the government of the day to slow down a bit, and make sure they're doing things properly rather than them doing them in a hurry so that they've got something to show at the next election," Hipkins said.

However, Massey University professor of politics Richard Shaw said he was still not certain four-year terms could become reality.

"I don't think they are inevitable - at least, not if a proposed change were to go to a referendum.

"It is the case that our three-year parliamentary term is unusual internationally, but so is the extent to which we lack the basic constitutional checks and balances against the exercise of executive authority that apply in virtually all other countries with longer parliamentary terms."

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis told RNZ the change could allow government ministers too much power.

"If we move to a four-year parliamentary term with no other changes, then we will have a governing system that allows the executive branch of government - that is basically, ministers - a huge amount of control over not just how government works but also how Parliament operates, and we will allow them to have that for longer."

Local Government New Zealand has also pushed for referendums for local councils and mayors to move to four-year terms, too, but also wants to make sure local body and national elections don't take place in the same year.

Say, haven't we tried this before?

Yes, and it failed to pass both times. In 1967, 68.1 percent of voters opted to keep three-year terms, while in 1990 the change was rejected by 69 percent of voters.

Views might be changing, though. Back in 2020, a Research New Zealand survey found 61 percent supported four-year terms.

In January of this year, a Horizon Research poll of 1025 adults found 40 percent supported the longer term and 30 percent didn't, but a whopping 30 percent weren't sure how they'd vote yet.

If it makes it to a referendum it will be the first time voters have considered it since the introduction of MMP voting in 1996.

Wasn't there some controversy over possibly doing variable 3-and 4-year terms?

The original bill proposed by Seymour included a provision that an incoming government would only get four years if it agreed to basically give the opposition a majority on all select committees. This would have meant some governments lasting three years, others lasting four.

But that's since been labelled by most - including Seymour - as too complex to pull off.

The Justice Select Committee roundly came out against variable terms, writing in its report that "a variable term would risk creating uncertainty for the public, local government, businesses, and communities regarding the frequency of changes to government policy."

Instead, the committee referred the question of additional checks and balances on executive power to the Standing Orders Committee, who review Parliament's rules.

Shaw said that as introduced, the legislation would likely make government less productive.

"Committees would become sites of intense partisan contest, and committee reports would routinely and unnecessarily oppose government bills to score political points, rather than improve the quality of legislation."

Shaw said the variable term idea was also "far too risky".

"A variable term, a decision on which would be taken at the beginning of each new Parliament, would introduce considerable uncertainty for little or no demonstrable benefit - particularly for the electoral agencies charged with delivering elections - which is another way of saying that there would be unacceptable risks to the holding of free and fair elections."

He also said many processes around reporting were tied to the length of the parliamentary term, and the business sector may not look favourably on the uncertainty of variable term lengths.

Geddis said it would be better to change Parliament's procedures in other ways.

"Changing standing orders to allow for greater opposition control and to allow the opposition more of a say in how the House works - that is a good idea, and it's a better way to do it," Geddis said.

Seymour has since said he would consider different options.

"I actually have listened, and I accept some of the criticism the select committee has put forward."

His revised idea was to bring in a permanent four-year term if backed in a referendum, but it would only take effect once select committees were made independent.

"I will now be putting to my colleagues right across the Parliament, that we need a four-year term. We need more sober and sensible law making, but it wouldn't be right to do it - and I don't believe the New Zealand people will vote for it in a referendum - unless there's some other new check and balance added."

So what's the next step?

Having been through select committee, the next step for the bill will be a second reading. It would then go to the whole House for debate on possible changes, and then a third reading and vote either to pass or reject it.

Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith presented the bill.

"As is standard parliamentary procedure, the next step is for the bill to go to second reading, with the select committee's recommendations included," he told RNZ.

"It is the decision of each respective political party to determine if they will support or oppose the bill."

Another bill currently set for a second reading, the Referendums Framework Bill, aims to fill a gap where there's no permanent legislative framework for running government-initiated referendums. It would provide options for referendums to be held in conjunction with either or both of the next two general elections - in 2026 or 2029.

The Justice Committee report calls this one "a generic bill that focuses on the mechanics of a referendum and is not specific to a referendum on the term of Parliament." That framework would expire on 31 October 2031.

Will New Zealand actually vote on it in next year's election?

Goldsmith said that there isn't yet a firm date.

"No decisions have been made as to when a referendum might be held."

The government has already set aside $25m for a referendum proposed to run alongside next year's election, the New Zealand Herald reported.

While there has been talk about it coming in time for the 2026 election, Seymour envisioned the referendum and eventual change taking longer.

"I believe it's good for any change in the term of Parliament to be a couple of elections into the future. It's something that's worth doing for our long-term future.

"And I wouldn't want the public to be voting in a referendum thinking that it was a government that they liked or didn't like that would be in for an extra year. We should separate the concepts from who is actually in government at any given time by extending out the period before it comes into place."

Geddis said one of the big unanswered questions is what the standing orders committee might do to ensure broader accountability.

"If those changes aren't made then the public are going to, in essence, be asked to give governments a whole extra year in power with no extra controls placed on how they use that power, and that could be a fairly high sell to the public I think."

Shaw said he still wasn't convinced it would pass. He said without greater checks on the executive, "the risks associated with skewing the field even further in favour of the executive branch clearly outweigh the potential policy-making benefits of a longer term".

"My sense is that most people understand this, at least at an intuitive level. I also think that the febrile state of politics in Aotearoa New Zealand is such that most people would not readily support a four-year term at this point in time.

"An election is one of the very few means we have of holding our governments to account, and I don't sense - in the present climate - an appetite for reducing the frequency with which we get to exercise that power."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.