Written by Nicholas Holden
Contemporary Relevance
Compared to most other democracies, New Zealand’s parliamentary term of three years is short (RNZ, 2019). This begs the question of whether there is good reason for New Zealand to transition to the more common four-year term.
On the 27th of February, pursuant to the National-Act coalition agreement, a bill was introduced that would enable a four-year Parliamentary term (Goldsmith, 2025). There is therefore potential for the length of New Zealand’s parliamentary term to shift in the near future.
Specifics of the Bill and the Select Committee Report
Due to the constitutional and democratic significance of such a change, a referendum either at the next election or in 2029 is the only means by which the bill can become law, given the entrenched nature of the existing legislation (Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill, 2025). It was initially was suggested that, should the bill pass, each newly elected government would have a choice of whether to have a three or four year term, with them only having the privilege of a four-year term if the “membership of certain select committees is calculated in a way that is proportionate to the non-Executive parliamentary party membership of the House” (Goldsmith, 2025). This was explained as a means of ensuring government accountability by giving opposition parties more power in the Select Committee process.
In recommending the bill be passed with amendments, the Justice Select Committee (2025) however suggested that “a variable term would risk creating uncertainty for the public, local government, businesses, and communities regarding the frequency of changes to government policy”. Recognising the need for additional checks and balances in a four-year term, the committee delegated consideration of the form this should take to the Standing Orders Committee (Justice Select Committee, 2025). Former Prime Minister and legal academic Sir Geoffrey Palmer has suggested that increasing the number of MPs is a better option, helping to reduce executive power while avoiding the legislative “gridlock” that may occur under the initial proposal (Walters, 2025). Differently, Professor Andrew Geddis has argued that changing the standing orders to give the opposition more power would be an effective means of ensuring accountability (Dirga, 2025). Even its proponent, David Seymour, has acknowledged that the initial proposal was too complex (Palmer, 2025).
History
The clear concern regarding less accountability under a four-year term is substantiated by the results of previous referendums on the matter. In 1967 and 1990, roughly 70% of Kiwi voters rejected a four-year term at the ballot box (Roberts, 2012). The fact that this issue is being put to Kiwi voters a third time is quite telling; it suggests that there are strong arguments both in favour of and against a four-year term.
Arguments For
A common and strong argument of proponents is that three years is not enough time for a government to effectively implement their legislative and policy agenda. Governments being starved for time with the next election hanging over their heads for much of their term can result in rushed legal and policy initiatives, creating a risk of them doing what is politically expedient rather than what is in the best interests of the nation in the long run. Additionally, governments may be unable to fully reap the benefits of their reforms at the ballot box under a three-year system, given policy benefits often take time to transmit throughout society.
Additionally, the three-year term means that Kiwis vote at a more frequent rate than most, thereby creating a risk of voter fatigue, resulting in poor voter turnout and general political apathy. For any democracy, this is extremely concerning, as the strength of a democracy comes from more voices and viewpoints being heard and represented. Recently, voter fatigue seemed to be on display in the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate by-election, where voter turnout was only 27.1% (Electoral Commission, 2025). Although such turnouts can be attributed to other reasons, such as votes of this type taking place outside the normal electoral period, they serve as an example of what can happen when the public is provided with voting opportunities at a high frequency. Frequent voting alongside governments lacking time to effectively implement their policy agenda risks creating a perception that voting is a futile exercise, done as a formality, rather than a means of bringing about actual change.
Further, elections are very costly. By reducing the frequency of this spending, money will be saved in the long run which could be diverted to other important uses.
Arguments Against
Prior to the Select Committee’s rejection of variable terms, there were already concerns that this approach would provide uncertainty (Duncan, 2025), negatively impacting business, policy and political confidence. However, this means of ensuring accountability is effectively ruled out, suggesting this concern is at least temporarily allayed.
With the absence of additional accountability mechanisms, many view an increase in the term length to four years as constitutionally and democratically inappropriate. This was well reflected in referendums on the matter in 1967 and 1990, where they overwhelmingly failed (Roberts, 2012). However, with a clear bipartisan understanding that extra accountability is needed to justify such a term length (Justice Select Committee, 2025), it will be interesting to see whether these concerns are adequately alleviated as the bill progresses through Parliament.
Contrary to what proponents argue, a longer term could result in inefficient lawmaking and slow responses to policy demands, given time is not as of the essence. This, coupled with less frequent voting, may result in unpopular and poorly performing governments remaining at the helm longer than they otherwise would.
Will Things Be Different This Time?
With two previous referendums on the matter resulting in no change, one must wonder whether history will repeat itself. Recent polls suggest there is a reasonable prospect of such a referendum succeeding this time around (Witton, 2025). There are still some parliamentary hurdles that need to be surmounted before a referendum is reached, but bipartisan support for the notion of four-year terms suggests that there is a strong likelihood that Kiwi voters will be confronted with the question soon enough. As the bill enters its second reading with the inclusion of the Select Committee’s recommendations, all that can be done now is to watch this space.
References
Dirga, N. (2025, September 3). Four or three years? What you need to know about the push to lengthen parliamentary terms. RNZ News. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/571904/four-or-three-years-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-push-to-lengthen-parliamentary-terms
Duncan, G. (2025, April 8). Four-Year Term of Parliament Bill: Why I oppose it. Politics Happens. https://grantduncanphd.substack.com/p/four-year-term-of-parliament-bill
Electoral Commission. (2025, September 6). Tāmaki Makaurau by-election preliminary results. https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2025/tamaki-makaurau-by-election-preliminary-results/
Goldsmith, P. (2025, February 27). Four-year term legislation to be introduced. Beehive.govt.nz. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/four-year-term-legislation-be-introduced
Justice Select Committee. (2025). Commentary. Parliamentary Counsel Office.
Palmer, R. (2025, August 26). David Seymour admits his approach to four-year term was too complicated. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360802588/david-seymour-admits-his-approach-four-year-term-was-too-complicated
RNZ. (2019, June 26). New report calls for four‑year term, more MPs in Parliament. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/392952/new-report-calls-for-four-year-term-more-mps-in-parliament
Roberts, N. (2012, June 12). Referendums. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. https://teara.govt.nz/en/referendums/page-5
Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (128-2). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2025/0128/latest/whole.html
Walters, L. (2025, February 28). Four-year term bill will come back to bite Government – Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Newsroom. https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/02/28/four-year-term-bill-will-come-back-to-bite-government-sir-geoffrey-palmer/
Witton, B. (2025, January 29). Poll shows support extending parliamentary term four years. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360561726/poll-shows-support-extending-parliamentary-term-four-years
