More time in office won’t lead to better policies—just slower processes or more poorly thought-out ones. And without real accountability, it just gives politicians more time to avoid consequences.
A counterpoint to this is that our system effectively functions as a six-year term—New Zealand hasn’t had a one-term government in 50 years. I wonder if three years is too short for voters to want to re-elect a government they’ve just voted out, and whether it also isn’t long enough for the new Opposition to regroup after the inevitable post-election resignations.
I’m all for more accountability, but I think four years might be the sweet spot where voters are actually ready to hold a new government to account.
Hi Charles, thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate it. I think that’s a fair point—New Zealand governments do tend to last two terms, effectively making it a six-year cycle. But I’d argue that’s precisely why we shouldn’t extend the term to four years. If voters already struggle to remove a government after just three years, wouldn’t a four-year term only make that inertia worse? And then we would have a government for 8 -12 years? Or how would we modify the reelection rules. In Mexico its a six year term with no reelection and in USA its 4 year term with 2 reelections, but 8 years with a government you don’t like is very long time.
Three years might feel short, but it forces governments to stay responsive. A four-year term risks giving them too much time without public pressure, and as we’ve seen, accountability mechanisms outside of elections are already weak. What guarantees that more time creates better quality policy and not just more of the poor quality policy? If anything, the fact that we rarely have one-term governments suggests that voters need more frequent opportunities to course-correct—not fewer?
I get the argument that a longer term allows voters to judge a government more fairly, but I think it also allows bad governance to settle in deeper before voters get the chance to do anything about it. If accountability is the goal, and I think it should be if not the goal, a top goal, shouldn’t we be strengthening the process, rather than delaying it? Nat
My theory, without proof, is that we would get more one-term governments if we had a 4-year term and so it might shorten the overall cycle.
After the first 3 years, I think the median voter votes the same way again, because: 1) still sick of the previous government they had just voted out, 2) maybe thinks current government isn't off to a great start but wants to give it more time, 3) subconsciously doesn't want to admit their previous vote was a mistake.
Whereas after 4 years: 1) the opposition might have reformed with new people and ideas, 2) it becomes clearer if the current government is bad, 3) the extra year makes it's easier to subconsciously justify their previous vote for whatever reason.
So for me it's more that at 3 years, even if the government doesn't seem that good, people aren't convinced they want to change back already. But by 4 years they are convinced (and have to wait until 6 years to get it). Agree that MMP muddies all these waters. I don't really understand your comment though that "the fact we rarely have one-term government suggests that voters need more frequent opportunities to course-correct"...if we're not usually taking the first opportunity that we get, why would we need one even sooner?
Since MMP at least the same government isn’t actually in for 6 years (or 9). The proportionality gets adjusted and a new coalition government is formed.
This is the only power the public have over a minor party holding the balance of power for too long.
Hi Jeff, that’s a great point about MMP—one I hadn’t considered in this context. But doesn’t your argument actually strengthen the case against extending the term? If adjusting proportionality and coalition shifts are the only real check the public has on a minor party holding too much power, then stretching the term to four years would just delay that correction even further. Wouldn’t that make it even harder for voters to rebalance power when needed? Nat
Oh right, lol! I didn’t realize it was your counter to his counter. Can I blame Substack difficult comment interface and not making it clear what comment is for what response? :D Thanks for clarifying.
Where does that leave players like Winnie? By my count he’s been in Government with Labour or National more than he’s been out. Can’t recall him actually being in opposition?
Natalia, one of the other arguments for a 4 year term I’ve often heard is that there will be less see-sawing in policy due to a new government reversing or changing direction of the previous government. Even with governments in for 6 or 9 years we’ve seen the impact of that on hospitals, roads, ferries etc.
Hi Jeff, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it. So, that’s a really common argument for a four-year term, but it holds up in practice. Policy see-sawing isn’t caused by term length—it’s caused by political ideology and more recently due to the radicalization of these political ideologies. The solution to the political see-saw is moderation and compromise not length. Even if we extended the term, governments would still reverse policies they don’t agree with when they come into power. That’s just how partisan politics works, and moderation is the only antidote to that illness.
Take hospitals, roads, and ferries—those issues have persisted across multiple long-term governments, not because of three-year cycles, but because of short-term political thinking (which will keep happening with a four year gov)and lack of cross-party consensus and governing. A four-year term doesn’t suddenly make politicians more strategic or cooperative—it just gives them an extra year to push through their own short term agenda before the cycle repeats.
If we really wanted to reduce political see-sawing, we’d focus on creating stronger independent institutions, bipartisan commitments to key infrastructure projects, and better long-term policy planning—not just giving politicians more time in power. And again, I want to emphasize that long term thinking wont come with a longer term. Short term thinking is the nature of politics, its not designed for long term thinking, it’s designed for day to day stability and managing and governing of a country. With long term sustainability and vision as a secondary goal. Nat
Personally my condition for having four year terms would be a restoration of an upper chamber (house of lords/ senate). Four years is too long to allow our unicarmal parliament to run without further checks and balances
I think that this government we have at present has made some very bad moves and it would be a great disadvantage to have them here for an extra year. If in four years the three the theoretical government had made moves we didn’t like they might have made us unable to change the laws they brought in… The present government seems very keen to have total power and do anything they want regardless of proper procedures. So they already look very dangerous and an extra year might be terminal – and that there may never be another election
Hi Natalia. You sound like you cant wait to get rid of this government, and I do agree that 3 years is a long enough electoral cycle for NZ. If we were a big country with 40million + people, it may be more convenient to have a 4 year cycle, but with only 6million people, I cant see enough reason to change. You seem to be making a drama over somebody touching someones arm, but you need to keep it in perspective. Liz Gun got thrown to the ground and arrested for touching someones arm, but you shouldnt get too precious about micro aggressions. Julie Ann Genters abusive shouting session was probably worse. I think politics would get more polarized with a 4 year term, because Labour party would have longer to fill the public service with their DEI employees, and the National party would have 4years to replace those employees and top positions with skilled people. That would cause more see sawing and probably be more polarized. Is that possible ?
Agree with much of this, but I'm not sure mistreatment of staff is the strongest case you could make. Surely it's the Hughesian wall of internal lobbying for department interests that is the biggest problem because it is wasteful and the distance it creates is highly alienating for outsiders?
'Fired' resonates with someone with whom I never want to nor ever want Aotearoa NZ to resemble..........Bayley should have ben 'sacked'. Thats the Kiwi terminology not as dramatic but for those of us who remember the heavy jute coal sack........it's powerful imagery.
I loved this read.
I will be doing a submission too and will be heavily influenced by this argument. Trouble is, we seem to be in a time of increasing non accountabilty all over the world, where bullies do what they like..........and that's the new cool. I don't like it but revolution seems to be in the air.............and that's scary as to who the perpetrators are driven by. The age of academic thinking and philosophy has passed maybe..........now the brutes might be the reformers............the shane jones frog killing mine mine mine take kickbacks kind of politician.......the would be kings, this seems to be the time for 'money' to speak and rule no matter how long the term is. Can we really pretend this isn't the new reality of politics. Unfortunately.
You highlight two critical failures: the lack of accountability in political behavior (as seen in Bayly’s case) and the deeper structural flaw in extending the parliamentary term. I agree—New Zealand’s political system already struggles to hold politicians accountable, and a four-year term would only make this worse. But part of what makes the three-year term valuable is precisely the discomfort it imposes on politicians. I think the primary motivation behind politicians pushing for a four year term is to increase their comfort.
Beyond personal accountability, there’s the structural argument. The three-year cycle is not just about efficiency or policy planning—it’s about contestation. Frequent elections force politicians to engage with the public, justify their positions, and compete for legitimacy. This is a disciplinary mechanism, just like market competition forces businesses to stay attuned to consumer demand.
The argument for a four-year term is often framed around governing versus campaigning, but this overlooks something fundamental: the process of political competition is not an inefficiency—it is the cutting edge of accountability. Just as businesses would prefer stable, defensible market positions over competitive struggle, politicians naturally prefer a longer term that gives them breathing room. But comfort in governance is not the same as good governance.
Political competition—like market competition—isn’t a flaw, it’s a feature. Reducing that competition makes life easier for politicians, not better for voters.
You mention the entrenchment mechanism in the bill, which would make it difficult to reverse a four-year term. That’s another example of politicians seeking insulation from contestation. It’s a clear signal that this is about power consolidation, not improved governance.
If we are serious about improving governance, we should not be giving politicians more time in office before they have to answer to voters. We should be making it easier to hold them accountable, not harder. That means:
• Stronger mechanisms for addressing misconduct (Bayly should have been fired, not allowed to resign).
• More transparency in parliamentary processes to prevent the shielding of bad behavior.
• Ensuring that political competition remains fierce, rather than giving politicians more time between moments of voter accountability.
More contestation means more accountability. More time just means more drift imo.
A counterpoint to this is that our system effectively functions as a six-year term—New Zealand hasn’t had a one-term government in 50 years. I wonder if three years is too short for voters to want to re-elect a government they’ve just voted out, and whether it also isn’t long enough for the new Opposition to regroup after the inevitable post-election resignations.
I’m all for more accountability, but I think four years might be the sweet spot where voters are actually ready to hold a new government to account.
Hi Charles, thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate it. I think that’s a fair point—New Zealand governments do tend to last two terms, effectively making it a six-year cycle. But I’d argue that’s precisely why we shouldn’t extend the term to four years. If voters already struggle to remove a government after just three years, wouldn’t a four-year term only make that inertia worse? And then we would have a government for 8 -12 years? Or how would we modify the reelection rules. In Mexico its a six year term with no reelection and in USA its 4 year term with 2 reelections, but 8 years with a government you don’t like is very long time.
Three years might feel short, but it forces governments to stay responsive. A four-year term risks giving them too much time without public pressure, and as we’ve seen, accountability mechanisms outside of elections are already weak. What guarantees that more time creates better quality policy and not just more of the poor quality policy? If anything, the fact that we rarely have one-term governments suggests that voters need more frequent opportunities to course-correct—not fewer?
I get the argument that a longer term allows voters to judge a government more fairly, but I think it also allows bad governance to settle in deeper before voters get the chance to do anything about it. If accountability is the goal, and I think it should be if not the goal, a top goal, shouldn’t we be strengthening the process, rather than delaying it? Nat
My theory, without proof, is that we would get more one-term governments if we had a 4-year term and so it might shorten the overall cycle.
After the first 3 years, I think the median voter votes the same way again, because: 1) still sick of the previous government they had just voted out, 2) maybe thinks current government isn't off to a great start but wants to give it more time, 3) subconsciously doesn't want to admit their previous vote was a mistake.
Whereas after 4 years: 1) the opposition might have reformed with new people and ideas, 2) it becomes clearer if the current government is bad, 3) the extra year makes it's easier to subconsciously justify their previous vote for whatever reason.
So for me it's more that at 3 years, even if the government doesn't seem that good, people aren't convinced they want to change back already. But by 4 years they are convinced (and have to wait until 6 years to get it). Agree that MMP muddies all these waters. I don't really understand your comment though that "the fact we rarely have one-term government suggests that voters need more frequent opportunities to course-correct"...if we're not usually taking the first opportunity that we get, why would we need one even sooner?
Since MMP at least the same government isn’t actually in for 6 years (or 9). The proportionality gets adjusted and a new coalition government is formed.
This is the only power the public have over a minor party holding the balance of power for too long.
Hi Jeff, that’s a great point about MMP—one I hadn’t considered in this context. But doesn’t your argument actually strengthen the case against extending the term? If adjusting proportionality and coalition shifts are the only real check the public has on a minor party holding too much power, then stretching the term to four years would just delay that correction even further. Wouldn’t that make it even harder for voters to rebalance power when needed? Nat
Yes in my opinion it strengthens the case against a 4-year term. It was my counter to his counter 🙂
Oh right, lol! I didn’t realize it was your counter to his counter. Can I blame Substack difficult comment interface and not making it clear what comment is for what response? :D Thanks for clarifying.
Where does that leave players like Winnie? By my count he’s been in Government with Labour or National more than he’s been out. Can’t recall him actually being in opposition?
excellent point
Natalia, one of the other arguments for a 4 year term I’ve often heard is that there will be less see-sawing in policy due to a new government reversing or changing direction of the previous government. Even with governments in for 6 or 9 years we’ve seen the impact of that on hospitals, roads, ferries etc.
What are your thoughts on that argument?
Hi Jeff, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it. So, that’s a really common argument for a four-year term, but it holds up in practice. Policy see-sawing isn’t caused by term length—it’s caused by political ideology and more recently due to the radicalization of these political ideologies. The solution to the political see-saw is moderation and compromise not length. Even if we extended the term, governments would still reverse policies they don’t agree with when they come into power. That’s just how partisan politics works, and moderation is the only antidote to that illness.
Take hospitals, roads, and ferries—those issues have persisted across multiple long-term governments, not because of three-year cycles, but because of short-term political thinking (which will keep happening with a four year gov)and lack of cross-party consensus and governing. A four-year term doesn’t suddenly make politicians more strategic or cooperative—it just gives them an extra year to push through their own short term agenda before the cycle repeats.
If we really wanted to reduce political see-sawing, we’d focus on creating stronger independent institutions, bipartisan commitments to key infrastructure projects, and better long-term policy planning—not just giving politicians more time in power. And again, I want to emphasize that long term thinking wont come with a longer term. Short term thinking is the nature of politics, its not designed for long term thinking, it’s designed for day to day stability and managing and governing of a country. With long term sustainability and vision as a secondary goal. Nat
Personally my condition for having four year terms would be a restoration of an upper chamber (house of lords/ senate). Four years is too long to allow our unicarmal parliament to run without further checks and balances
I think that this government we have at present has made some very bad moves and it would be a great disadvantage to have them here for an extra year. If in four years the three the theoretical government had made moves we didn’t like they might have made us unable to change the laws they brought in… The present government seems very keen to have total power and do anything they want regardless of proper procedures. So they already look very dangerous and an extra year might be terminal – and that there may never be another election
All the arguments seem to be suggesting we should have an annual election.
Hi Natalia. You sound like you cant wait to get rid of this government, and I do agree that 3 years is a long enough electoral cycle for NZ. If we were a big country with 40million + people, it may be more convenient to have a 4 year cycle, but with only 6million people, I cant see enough reason to change. You seem to be making a drama over somebody touching someones arm, but you need to keep it in perspective. Liz Gun got thrown to the ground and arrested for touching someones arm, but you shouldnt get too precious about micro aggressions. Julie Ann Genters abusive shouting session was probably worse. I think politics would get more polarized with a 4 year term, because Labour party would have longer to fill the public service with their DEI employees, and the National party would have 4years to replace those employees and top positions with skilled people. That would cause more see sawing and probably be more polarized. Is that possible ?
Agree with much of this, but I'm not sure mistreatment of staff is the strongest case you could make. Surely it's the Hughesian wall of internal lobbying for department interests that is the biggest problem because it is wasteful and the distance it creates is highly alienating for outsiders?
Maybe Labour can have 4-8 years to implement infrastructure projects and National can have 3-6 years to cancel them and build roads instead.
'Fired' resonates with someone with whom I never want to nor ever want Aotearoa NZ to resemble..........Bayley should have ben 'sacked'. Thats the Kiwi terminology not as dramatic but for those of us who remember the heavy jute coal sack........it's powerful imagery.
I loved this read.
I will be doing a submission too and will be heavily influenced by this argument. Trouble is, we seem to be in a time of increasing non accountabilty all over the world, where bullies do what they like..........and that's the new cool. I don't like it but revolution seems to be in the air.............and that's scary as to who the perpetrators are driven by. The age of academic thinking and philosophy has passed maybe..........now the brutes might be the reformers............the shane jones frog killing mine mine mine take kickbacks kind of politician.......the would be kings, this seems to be the time for 'money' to speak and rule no matter how long the term is. Can we really pretend this isn't the new reality of politics. Unfortunately.
Hi Nat. Another good one.
You highlight two critical failures: the lack of accountability in political behavior (as seen in Bayly’s case) and the deeper structural flaw in extending the parliamentary term. I agree—New Zealand’s political system already struggles to hold politicians accountable, and a four-year term would only make this worse. But part of what makes the three-year term valuable is precisely the discomfort it imposes on politicians. I think the primary motivation behind politicians pushing for a four year term is to increase their comfort.
Beyond personal accountability, there’s the structural argument. The three-year cycle is not just about efficiency or policy planning—it’s about contestation. Frequent elections force politicians to engage with the public, justify their positions, and compete for legitimacy. This is a disciplinary mechanism, just like market competition forces businesses to stay attuned to consumer demand.
The argument for a four-year term is often framed around governing versus campaigning, but this overlooks something fundamental: the process of political competition is not an inefficiency—it is the cutting edge of accountability. Just as businesses would prefer stable, defensible market positions over competitive struggle, politicians naturally prefer a longer term that gives them breathing room. But comfort in governance is not the same as good governance.
Political competition—like market competition—isn’t a flaw, it’s a feature. Reducing that competition makes life easier for politicians, not better for voters.
You mention the entrenchment mechanism in the bill, which would make it difficult to reverse a four-year term. That’s another example of politicians seeking insulation from contestation. It’s a clear signal that this is about power consolidation, not improved governance.
If we are serious about improving governance, we should not be giving politicians more time in office before they have to answer to voters. We should be making it easier to hold them accountable, not harder. That means:
• Stronger mechanisms for addressing misconduct (Bayly should have been fired, not allowed to resign).
• More transparency in parliamentary processes to prevent the shielding of bad behavior.
• Ensuring that political competition remains fierce, rather than giving politicians more time between moments of voter accountability.
More contestation means more accountability. More time just means more drift imo.