Parties could depoliticise the debate by asking the Law Commission to develop a discussion document and a bill and have a special select committee with all parties represented to hear the submissions
Opinion: I made a very quick submission to the Independent Electoral Review at the last minute. It is easy to overlook calls for submissions with so much going on.
I focused on one issue, the Parliamentary term, which in my view needs to be changed to four years.
READ MORE:
* Government terms: three years or four?
* The tricky timing of constitutional change
* Electoral review recommends 3.5% threshold, voting age of 16
I noted that the Review of the Future for Local Government recommended an increased term of four years, and that consistency between the two systems would be good.
It is extremely difficult to take office with a manifesto to implement when the first year is very much a learning curve, the second year is the only full year to deliver policy, and the third year is taken up with preparation for the next election
Although I am pleased they acknowledged it was time for another referendum, the last one being in 1990, I was disappointed at the lack of analysis and at least an attempt to weigh the balance that they described in the consultation document.
They said they received arguments for and against a change to four years. It was simply a matter for voters to decide through a referendum, admittedly accompanied by a well-resourced information campaign. I agree with that, but in their consultation document they said that determining the length of the parliamentary term is a balance between ensuring voters can regularly hold the government to account and the time it takes to enact policy. Surely this required a more meaningful response.
As I said in my submission, I believe the term of Parliament should be extended to four years, and the same should apply to local government. It is extremely difficult to take office with a manifesto to implement when the first year is very much a learning curve, the second year is the only full year to deliver policy, and the third year is taken up with preparation for the next election. Four years would give two clear years in between, which would achieve that balance.
I went on to suggest that with local body terms extended as well, the local body elections could occur in the second year of the Parliamentary term, which would be much better for central/local government relationships. I believe these relationships are essential as we take on the challenges that we will increasingly have to confront as is the case with increasingly severe weather events.
I would have encouraged the government to hold a referendum on the parliamentary term at this election to take effect from the following election, but it is too late now. However, I would call on all parties to commit to holding a referendum in the next term so that any change could take effect in 2026. And to be honest, maybe that would be a better approach – taking the political heat out of the issue.
I remember the last referendum on the length of the Parliamentary term very well. 1990 was when I was first elected to Parliament. The backdrop was the fallout from ‘Rogernomics’, a reference to former finance minister Roger Douglas. There was a real sense of a breach of trust, and under a first-past-the-post system, the polls were indicating a National landslide. During the campaign the promise had been made for a referendum on changing the electoral system to be held in 1993.
So, the timing of this referendum on the parliamentary term could not have been worse. And I for one was not surprised with the result.
However, I did not think we would be waiting 33 years to consider it again. I think that’s because it is considered a political hot potato. And that’s why all parties could depoliticise the debate – ask the Law Commission to develop a discussion document and a bill and have a special select committee with all parties represented hear the submissions. This has proved to be an effective model before.
Although a minor matter, in terms of their response to the timing of the election, I believe the date should be set in statute – local body elections are set in statute for the second Saturday in October. This would still have to be subject to holding the confidence of the House of Representatives. But it would have the benefit of not giving anyone an advantage of knowing the date before others, which was the issue raised in the consultation document, but not mentioned in this report.
Their commentary simply states that in recent years, the prime minister has given plenty of notice of the election, and therefore ‘this convention appears to work well, balancing the need for both flexibility and certainty’ and so no change was recommended.
The last referendum on this was only six years after a prime minister had not given plenty of notice of an election (we all recall the famous line ‘it doesn’t give my opponents much time either’). In this day and age, do we really want to leave it as a governing party advantage?
But as I said this is a minor issue. The major issue is that to ensure effective government and public accountability, we need to depoliticise the holding of a referendum on the parliamentary term. Are all the parties willing to do that?
