A study by the University of Melbourne notes that NZ is one of only 7 or so countries in the world to have a 3-year electoral cycle (Paraguay and El Salvador, Mexico and Nauru are some of the others). This sets the parameters for short-termism in our national thinking. A new government needs several months to bed in, establish priorities, find funds that aren't already locked in and get new projects, policies and initiatives up and running. This gives them about a period of about 18-20 months of "governing" before, lo and behold, it's election time again.
This time frame isn't conducive to thoughtful, considered, policy development and careful implementation, nor does it give a government enough time to monitor the success (or otherwise) of its initiatives.
Factor in the "Obama/Trump effect" which sees an incoming government often ditch the previous government's projects or policies (sometimes before these have had time to prove their efficacy) because it wasn't their idea - and there is a real risk of wasted effort and resources.
The Electoral Commission estimates the cost of the last election to be $38 million. That's a lot of money to be forking out at 3-yearly intervals.
We've had a couple of referenda on this issue 1967 and 1990 - both under First Past the Post when there was no time needed post-election to form a coalition government. It's time we had another Referendum on this subject.
Covid 19 has shown us the benefit of slowing down, thinking more carefully, taking time to reevaluate our priorities: let's put this into an extended political cycle.
Yes, a 4 year electoral cycle would help longer-term thinking a wee bit. I'm reasonably comfortable that NZ politicians have NZ's best interests at heart, with much less politicking (e.g. Australia) or partisanship (US).
What does concern me about our system is knee-jerk legislation and the reliance on Opposition to provide checks and balances. What I suggest is to create an Upper House with say, 20 members, on a 7 year electoral cycle, and reduce the current (Lower) House to around 100 members. This would give the longer-term view that a lot of our legislation needs, albeit with a risk that we get the sort of partisan gridlock that we see in the US. However, I believe NZ politicians are a bit more cooperative and less confrontational than their Aussie and US counterparts, so it's a low risk. Having an Upper House to review, reject or accept Lower House legislation reduces the danger that a feral, populist Lower House voted in on a narrow issue cannot stuff the country up with damaging policies, and therefore a 4 year electoral cycle becomes acceptable.
A lighter weight suggestion is to mandate a minimum 6 month gap between an event and consequent legislation. Two examples spring to mind: dog control and gun control. An event happens, the media and politicians whip up a storm of outrage, then legislation is rushed through that is poorly thought-through but appeases the masses (us!) and therefore satisfies politicians (they've 'fixed' the problem). In reality, though, the 'fix' doesn't really address the underlying problem, and more often handicaps the responsible citizens. A 6 month gap gives some time to let hot heads settle, and allow time for the problem to be better understood and relevant legislation developed, if it's found to be actually necessary. We already have a mechanism for genuinely urgent legislation (witness the covid-19 response), so I would expect that to remain.
Your thoughts?