Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Constitution Act 1986 and the Electoral Act 1993 to enable a four-year parliamentary term. Under this bill, the standard maximum term of Parliament will remain three years, with the potential to extend the term of Parliament to four years at the start of each parliamentary term if a specific condition is met. The specific condition is that the membership of a subject select committee is proportionate to the non-executive party membership of the House. In effect, the bill creates a variable term of Parliament.

A proposal to extend the term of Parliament to four years has gone to referendum twice before, once in the late 1960s—and, curiously, I’ve written a couple of books about participants in that debate—and the last time was in 1990, where voters chose to retain a three-year parliamentary term. Time has passed since then and New Zealand has changed significantly in the intervening 35 years, particularly with the introduction of MMP. The coalition Government has, in introducing this bill, decided that it’s time at least to consider having that debate again.

Now, the arguments for and against a four-year term are reasonably well canvassed. The primary argument in favour is the hope and expectation that a longer term will lead to improved lawmaking. A four-year term would provide a longer period of effective decision-making and legislating before the political challenges of the election year come around. Quite often, first-term Governments will spend a portion of their first year establishing themselves and then a significant proportion of their third year preparing for re-election, and the time of effective decision-making is relatively limited. A four-year term would allow for a longer period.

It also has the potential to reduce the disruption caused by more regular changes of Government, which would benefit longer-term policy projects, such as infrastructure, where the cost of change can be high. New Zealand is relatively rare as one of only three nations with similar systems with a three-year term. The Australian Federal Parliament has a three-year term but, interestingly, all of the states have over the past few decades shifted to a four-year term, and some will argue that that works well.

The primary argument against is that the New Zealand Parliament faces relatively few checks and balances, and that argues for more regular opportunities for the electorate to pass judgment on the Government’s success or otherwise and, if they’re not happy, to throw them out. The bill as introduced addresses that concern by strengthening the checks and balances on the Government through the select committee requirement to help balance the effect of a longer term. In practice, this would typically result in Opposition parties having more seats on the subject select committees and, quite likely, having a majority on those committees, and that is intended to enable stronger accountability and increased scrutiny on the Government. The trade-off would be a longer period but increased scrutiny through the select committees.

Key provisions in the bill allow the term to be extended by a proclamation issued by the Governor-General. A proclamation could only be issued if the House of Representatives has passed a resolution confirming that the proportionality required is satisfied. The resolution of the House would need to be passed within three months of the first sitting of Parliament, which means that this process can only occur once in the parliamentary term.

It’s also important to note that, even if the select committee condition was met, it’s up to the members of Parliament to choose whether to move or support any resolution to extend the term. The current three-year maximum term is entrenched, recognising the constitutional significance of this, and so the bill proposes to entrench key settings enabling a four-year term alongside this. If passed, this will protect the key constitutional changes provided for in the bill in the same way that the existing provision provides for the current maximum three-year term.

Given the constitutional significance of the term of Parliament, it’s appropriate to give the public the choice to vote directly on the matter in a nationwide referendum. This means that key provisions of the bill would only come into effect following a referendum where the majority of voters supported the change. To this end, the bill sets out the proposed referendum question and two options for response that voters must decide upon. It’s possible that a referendum could be held alongside the next general election in 2026; however, any final decisions on the timing of a referendum will depend on what comes out of the select committee process. Future decisions will also need to be made by the Government as to whether the bill proceeds as introduced or whether it should be amended.

Both the National, ACT, and New Zealand First coalition agreements include supporting a bill to the select committee that would enact a binding referendum on a four-year term. At this stage, I want to make the point: no decisions have been made on whether the bill will proceed beyond this point, and the intention is that we want to hear what New Zealanders think during the select committee process, and so all New Zealanders will have an opportunity to have their say.

We think it’s important for New Zealanders to consider this from time to time, and then, ultimately, the Government has to make a judgment in Parliament as to whether we think it’s time to press ahead and actually have a referendum on this, and exactly what the referendum should be. To allow for the possibility of a referendum on this matter, the Referendums Framework Bill is also being progressed to provide a generic framework for the conduct of a referendum.

The select committee process is very important to discuss this fundamental constitutional issue. I encourage members of the public to have their say when the Justice Committee calls for submissions. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It may be indeed that this is a rare case of a genuinely open select committee process, because we on this side of the House are taking a similar approach. We think it’s a fair question and we look forward to a select committee process which explores not only the core question of whether this is a matter to be put to referendum but exactly what that question should be. In principle, yes, that’s what first readings are all about.

We accept that the time is probably about right to ask the electorate whether they would think it a good idea to give this lot an additional year in Government. [Interruption] This lot widely—this lot widely; us lot. I do note that there has been already some criticism. I just want to identify that very eminent person who’s suggested that there should be an overarching review. There is always space for a constitutional review, and other things that have been going on in this House and elsewhere would indicate that might be a good idea, but we tend to think that this is an issue which is sufficiently discrete that it is appropriate to consider it alone.

As has been noted, this is a Parliament without a huge amount of checks, other than mixed member proportional representation and the coalition arrangements that that brings. At the same time, Governments—of all colours—have routinely been criticised for short-term decision-making and pressured decision-making and rushed decision-making. There is at least an argument that this will lead to higher-quality decisions with a longer time horizon.

We have reservations about the need to start meddling through legislation with Standing Orders and recognise that this is a relatively unusual thing to do. By and large, the House itself manages its Standing Orders. Whilst it’s not unknown—I think it’s done in respect of some regulations review and disallowance—it’s very unusual for legislation to dictate back to the House what its Standing Orders should be and, therefore, in a sense, in a backdoor kind of way, bind future Parliaments. So, yep, we’ve got some concerns around that.

Also, we are not excited about the idea of no one being quite sure how long Parliament will be until a decision has been made by the Prime Minister. That’s a kind of uncertainty which I’m not sure the electorate would be happy with. I guess the other thing is that the question then lacks clarity. A clean question is a good question. If the question is “Four years or three years—yes or no?”, that’s a question that’s very easy to communicate and to discuss, whereas talking about—and it’s pretty arcane stuff to ordinary New Zealanders—how many seats on select committee an Opposition party should have, that’s not something that’s going to be very exciting. It might be a good idea, but we’re not sure that the two things need to be closely linked.

The other thing I’d just identify is this process—the process of forming a Government—can take long enough. The additional wrangling of select committee positions and whether or not this proceeds may extend that and, in fact, have an obtuse effect of making it more difficult to form a Government once the election decision has been made.

Look, let’s go and have a look. It may go no further. It may be that the National Party doesn’t support it but we do—who knows? That would be an exciting day. But let’s wait and see how it goes.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to establish an ad hoc committee to consider the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be so.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand before you with ambivalence about this bill, which proposes changing Aotearoa’s electoral term from three years to four but only sometimes and with no certainty in advance for voters. Today, I’m going to highlight three points underpinning that ambivalence: the need for true long-term planning, lessons from the recent independent electoral inquiry, and the importance of broader constitutional reform.

Look, many people advocate for more time to plan for complex issues. Addressing human health, particularly preventative measures, restoring nature, maintaining infrastructure, they’re 30-, 40-, 50-, 70-year projects, and, really, whether it’s three years or four years makes very little difference when you ought to be thinking several generations in advance. If we had that kind of inclusive, long-term, multi-party planning, we might not face issues like the flip-flopping on the ferries that risks isolating communities, undermining tourism, and cutting supply chains. To leave a better future for generations to come, we need policies that extend beyond electoral cycles. Let’s get rid of that rush—undone by the next Government.

My colleague across the House may recollect that one of our most effective processes was Our City—Our Future, which was a citizens’ participatory process that actually shaped many aspects of council decision-making for several decades. A local example of long-term thinking is Zealandia’s 500-year vision. Now, there’s a challenge: think what’s going to happen in 500 years, not five months. The recent independent electoral inquiry raised some critical issues about New Zealand’s electoral system, including the need to rethink citizen engagement to make democracy more responsive. Does this three- or four-year term maybe or maybe not address those deeper concerns?

It’s also extraordinary that no thought seems to have been given to extending local government terms to match, given that was recommended by the recent Local Government New Zealand task force. It is extraordinary that sometimes you’d clash: sometimes you’d have elections in the same year; sometimes you wouldn’t. I don’t think that that’s an organised way to improve the partnership between local and central government, but it’s typical of the current Government’s disregard for local democracy. Real reform should focus on strengthening citizen engagement through participatory democracy at both local and central levels.

Thirdly, addressing the broader issue of constitutional reform, we want a more comprehensive discussion. I appreciate my colleague’s point that maybe this little point can be pulled out, but I would much prefer to value the work of Matike Mai, the 252 hui held across the motu. Moana Jackson set a high bar for constitutional reform, and this bill doesn’t really meet those standards. There was far more public support for lowering the voting age, improving civics education, and limiting donations to political parties than there is support for changing the term. We will be cautious. We will support it to select committee and maybe it can be sufficiently improved. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this four-year term bill. I want to start by conceding that I suspect we’re on a hiding to nothing when this bill goes to referendum. The simple reason is that this is a time when, around the world, people’s trust in politicians is in decline, and, yet, what people will see is politicians asking to be trusted for an extra year. I think that’s why it’s on a hiding to nothing.

I’m proud to be supporting it and I’m proud to have had some involvement in the creation of this bill, because I believe it is the right thing to do for New Zealand. I’m thinking about a time when I’m not a politician, perhaps when the voters have retired me, and I’ll be living my life, and I would rather live in a New Zealand with a longer parliamentary term. The simplest reason for that is that I believe we need more stability. We’re an outlier globally. There are about 180 countries that have some form of Parliament; we’re one of nine that has a three-year electoral term.

It’s not just three years to four, because, as Paul Goldsmith mentioned, with election campaigns and the bedding in an establishment of new Governments, three years is really two of effective debates and policy making and thinking. If we go to four years in total, we’re really going from an effective two years to an effective three years. It’s not a 33 percent increase; it’s a 50 percent increase in the effective length of a Government.

I think that’s critical for reasons that other members have touched on. As parties as diverse as the National Party and the Greens have said, actually, we need to give more stability for developing things like infrastructure, for making policies, giving people confidence, whether they’re from inside New Zealand or outside New Zealand. This is a place with a stable policy environment to invest in. In many ways, it is about our maturity as a country. I think our current constitutional set-up could perhaps unkindly be described as a sort of teenage set-up. We have no Upper House. We have no states or provinces. We have no written constitution. What we have is this three-year term, and it leads to erratic lawmaking.

There’s a second part to this proposal which I think is important, and that’s why I’ve called it, in the past, a four-year term with a twist. It also involves changing the way that this place operates to be slower, more accountable, more sober, and, ultimately, a better place to make laws with more participation from all of the people in this Chamber, not just those who are Ministers. That change is simply to ensure that most of the time the Opposition will be running the select committees—the smaller versions of Parliament that scrutinise new laws, that call in public officials to hold them accountable, that can run inquiries. That will be run by Opposition while the Government will still have a majority in this Chamber and make the ultimate laws.

The effects of that, I believe, will give more voice to New Zealanders through their elected representatives because select committees, and the committee of the whole House stage, for that matter, will be more of a contest with more debate about policy, with more voice. I believe it will also improve the esteem of parliamentarians, because, in some countries, to be a member of Parliament is a very respectable thing. Here, people really want to become a Minister. I think having backbench MPs with more power in this place will actually be good for the esteem of the profession and, ultimately, the quality and competence of people who join it—no offence to anyone currently here.

I think that if we’re prepared to have a mature discussion about this change, then we will lead ourselves to a place where we have a more stable policy environment, a higher quality of debate, people feeling that their voices are heard better through stronger select committees, more trust in our democracy, and, ultimately, the progression of what might be called a teenage constitutional country into maybe just a young adult with a bit more surety and confidence in itself—more stability, more investment, more infrastructure, higher wages, and, ultimately, a country that we can be even prouder of. I’m glad so many parties are supporting this bill. I look forward to supporting it further. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. I welcome this conversation and I welcome the bill being introduced. As we’ve heard, we’ve got a very short term of Parliament. We are a bit of an outlier there, and that does have implications. This bill introduces a four-year term—sort of—because it’s a conditional four-year term, and I think that that’s a real complexity in the bill. The bill only introduces that four-year term if the conditions around the way in which select committees are organised are met, and this bill suggests entrenching this model through a referendum.

Look, over the years, well before coming into this House, I’ve asked many people about the idea of having a four-year term, or possibly even a five-year term, and, almost unanimously, the politicians and the leaders—business leaders, community leaders—have said that, actually, that’s a good idea but that there is this need for some checks and balances. But this is not ours to determine. Ultimately, it is for the people to determine it. It’s the people’s electoral system and they should be the ones to determine that, and that is why a referendum is attached to this proposition, as well.

New Zealand First, as members know, has always been very keen on referenda, because we believe in the wisdom of the people to make choices. As diverse as we are, we’re diverse in this House and on policy and we are diverse as a people.

We’ve already heard that a four-year term, in theory, will make decisions less rushed and more considered, and that’s good. It’s an opportunity, potentially, for better-quality engagement. Perhaps we won’t have short turnarounds for bills to be sent through select committees and then back again. Hopefully, there might be less urgency used and in much more limited circumstances.

I think that the most important thing—and I think we’ve already heard this before—is that it might give us the opportunity of having more strategic thinking, and, I’ve got to say, New Zealand Government for decades have been very, very poor at that. It doesn’t matter what the colour of those Governments was, we haven’t done that very well. There are some opportunities, I think, and we’ve had some good conversations across the House around infrastructure planning. If we could do some of those long-term things and do them together so that they are multipartisan and will survive changes of Government, that would be a really, really good thing for New Zealand.

Our coalition agreements actually aren’t quite the same. The National-ACT agreement says, “Pass the Constitution”—well, that was what it was originally entitled. It says, “Pass the Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill through first reading in the first 15 months of the term.” Well, we’re actually about 16 months in, but never mind. That’s what the National-ACT agreement said. The National - New Zealand First agreement is actually broader. What it says is to “Support to select committee a bill that would enact a binding referendum on a four-year term of parliament.”—so, in other words, it didn’t put conditions around that. That’s the conversation that we’re having, I suppose, as a coalition. We’ve actually got two different parts to the agreement, but both of them do say that we should take this through a select committee process and that we should allow the people of New Zealand to have a say.

The bill, rightly, proposes that any change should be a decision for the people, and I think that what that says is also that New Zealanders recognise the need for checks and balances. If people can remember the title of Unbridled Power—you know, going back to the Roger Douglas days—it was actually that that encouraged me to get involved in politics, because I saw a Government doing what it did—

Rawiri Waititi: Really? Neo-liberal reforms.

ANDY FOSTER: —for good or for ill—the colour of the Government didn’t matter. But it was the nature of the unbridled power which was the critical thing. In fact, the explanatory note to this bill actually recognises that. It says, “The intention of this”—the proportionality requirement—“is that the term of a Parliament could only be extended if there are improved checks and balances on the Government”. The bill itself recognises the need to do that. It proposes a particular way of doing that, but that’s only one way of doing it. There are multiple different ways of doing it.

There are other things which are missing in this bill, and one of those is this. We will all be aware that Local Government New Zealand has said—as my colleague over the way there has said—“Well, what about a four-year term for us?” This bill is missing any reference to local government, because otherwise there would be clashes when elections are held, effectively, at the same time, and that is going to confuse people a lot. I think that that is something that needs to be considered, and I would encourage submissions along those lines. It’s a lot harder for us to put checks and balances on Parliament than it is to put them on local government, but it is possible.

If I may just finish off by saying that, as we know, we don’t have a second Chamber. We do have the courts, but the courts are subject to the decisions that the Government makes, and, in fact—

Sam Uffindell: Are they—are they?

ANDY FOSTER: —on visiting the Supreme Court—no, they did say that quite explicitly. If we don’t like what the courts do, we can change those things, and we should do that. What about the role of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? What about the role of referenda? There are a lot of things that I hope that the public of New Zealand will engage in. I’m going to commend this bill to the House, and I’m going to be really, really interested in the discussion, going forward.

Checks and balances. Look, once upon a time, I probably would have supported a bill like this, but I tell you what, you’re asking for four years. I can tell you what you’ve done in 16 months.

In just over 16 months—just over a year—this Government has dismantled the Māori Health Authority, scrapped smoke-free targets, whitewashed the school curriculum, cut $300 million off targeted Māori funding, cut Matariki funding, cut school lunches, rejected the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, defunded section 27 reports, banned gang patches, enabled the police to terrorise our communities, whitewashed the Waitangi Tribunal and undermined the courts, and demoted te reo Māori to a second-class language.

They have brought back three strikes and boot camps for children. They are throwing families out of emergency housing, and building a mega-prison. They are repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, displacing another generation of our mokopuna. They are ram-raiding our environment with fast-track legislation, reversing oil and gas bans, and privatising freshwater management. They are entrenching the confiscation of our coastline through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. They have gutted our health system, they are cutting benefits at record numbers after cutting 10,000 jobs, and, right now, they are debating our very existence as Māori with the Treaty principles bill.

Sixteen months—shocking. Sixteen months, and you want four years? I tell you what, four years has been a hate campaign against Māori. We cannot stand another four years. I’ll tell you what, it has been three terms for a Government over the last few Governments. Nine years. You add four years, that’s 12 years of terrorising our people. Absolutely not.

I’ll tell you what, it’s bigger—the agenda is bigger. There is a global agenda happening here. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill was about removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi to allow international corporations and corporate greed into this country. I’ll tell you what, a four-year term will allow a Government to run rampant over our people. Let’s just put it out there—let’s just put it out there. Let’s go out and look at the ongoing world issues at the moment. I hear just in some of the speeches the Americanising of our country. States, all of that type of speak—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Trumpet.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —making our country like a Trump-type nation. I’ll tell you what, the ongoing world issues: the Russian war with Ukraine, the uprising global strikes, continuing warzones in the Middle East, Israel versus Gaza, supply line delays in the Red Sea, China surging into the Pacific, high interest rates worldwide now falling slowly, inflation not under control, and Trump stirring up the world trade by tariff increases and crazy, outlandish statements. This Government needs investors to mine—

Suze Redmayne: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —to buy properties, to exploit us, and only by providing certainty through a four-year policy in Government terms—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I have a point of order, Mr Waititi. I’m calling a point of order.

RAWIRI WAITITI: You’re going to interrupt my flow.

Suze Redmayne: I’m not sure how this is relevant to the bill that we’re discussing.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That’s actually the Speaker’s call.

RAWIRI WAITITI: This Government is cruel. Doesn’t care about ordinary families struggling to get ahead who are here forever. Our whānau and our people are here forever, to look after our beautiful nation, and you want to open it up and exploit it. This is what a four-year term will do with that type of Government in control.

Now, if there was a three-term Government, you’re going to get 12 years of that—absolutely not. You’re going to be lucky to get this three years. I tell you what, you’re going to be gone after that. We are absolutely against a four-year term, and if you’re going to repeat it—eight years, 12 years—oh, cripes’ sakes. Where does that leave our people? I tell you what. Just in 16 months the damage that this Government has done, and you want four years? Absolutely not. Once upon a time, I may have supported a bill like this, but after your actions and after the way you’ve run this country, absolutely not.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

RAWIRI WAITITI: We are absolutely against this particular bill. Everything I have said is exactly what this bill talks about.

We’re not talking about the real issues here. This is the reason why you want four years. It’s not just about four years of strategic planning and infrastructure. What a whole lot of rubbish—what a whole lot of rubbish. You want more time to unravel decades of development. You want to continue to crush—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —people who are living in poverty, crushing Māori in terms of the way you run this Government. Absolutely not. It’s got everything to do with four years because look what you did in 16 months. We do not want a four-year term. This bill should be thrown in the rubbish, along with this Government. Kia ora tātou.

Unfortunately, the debate about the value of a four-year term I think might come down to a clip of Rawiri Waititi’s speech justifying why this Government needs 12 years, and why this Government should continue to be in power to make sure that sort of thing is not in the Treasury benches. As much as I was looking forward to a considered select committee process about this bill—and may not exactly support it, or not at this stage, personally—that speech, “that rubbish” to quote the last speaker, Rawiri Waititi, is going to make people want this Government having four years for terms to come.

When we look at this bill and this bill talks about going to select committee—I will note that it was Dr Duncan Webb who brought politics into this first reading right at the beginning. The Opposition has made a lot—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Just seeking clarity from the Speaker. Is it acceptable for a member to call another member’s speech rubbish? Just seeking clarity. I don’t want to interrupt your compelling speech.

Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, because it’s not a point of order.

CARL BATES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, it was the Hon Dr Duncan Webb who brought politics into this discussion early in the first reading. I just wonder in the context of this bill, and particularly the component that talks about the Opposition having control, essentially, of the select committees, whether New Zealanders that voted this Government in would want to see any of that side of the House in charge of any of the select committees dealing with the rubbish that we took over and had to sort out under this term.

I’m sure there will be lots of New Zealanders that will submit on this bill and raise those points as part of the select committee process. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to interrogating those questions, interrogating those submissions, and looking where we take this when it comes back to the House for a second reading. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to be able to take a short call on this important bill which is of constitutional significance, the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

I do have some specific thoughts about this piece of legislation, which I will share with the House, but in response to some of the previous speakers, Mr Bates, this is a political issue. Of course it is. It happens in Parliament, and definitely the support of the Labour Party is certainly not an endorsement of anything that this Government is doing. I think what we’re looking at when we’re looking about constitutional change is, from a bipartisan or non-partisan perspective, what is the best thing for New Zealand in terms of the way that New Zealand is governed and the constitutional arrangement that New Zealand has.

Obviously, from our perspective, the next election couldn’t come soon enough, but, at the same time, we’re able to take a wider view of this and look at comparative jurisdictions and also acknowledge our own experience in relation to having three years in order to achieve what I think all parties in this Parliament have, which has a high level of ambition to make New Zealand a better place, no matter what the political leanings are.

As my colleagues have said, we will be supporting this bill to select committee, but that does not mean that we support all of the provisions in the bill or that we don’t have some very serious thoughts which do require due consideration at select committee. Those are mainly to do with what I would describe as quite an odd way that this bill has been drafted.

The fact that the fourth year is reliant on changes to select committee membership is highly unusual, and I think highly problematic. That is not at all to say that I don’t think there are good discussions that can be made, helpful discussions that can be made, about the effectiveness of select committees and how a greater Opposition role in select committees might aid our democracy. I think those are valid questions, but I think the way that this bill is set up is incredibly odd and will be confusing to most New Zealanders. I understand it as someone who has been here now for four years—I don’t think most Kiwis would.

The second issue that I wanted to raise was the question that is being put to referendum. Now, I haven’t had the opportunity to go back and look at some of the questions that have been put in referendums in the past, but I intend to do that as this bill progresses through the House. My memory and understanding of that is the simpler the question, the more likely it is to be a correct reflection of the desire of New Zealanders responding to that referendum.

This question, “Do you support the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Act coming into force?”, is not a simple question. The question should be, “Do you support a four-year term of Parliament?” Full stop. And we can provide additional information for that. If that is the will of New Zealanders in a referendum, then the Parliament should be able to enact that in a way that is fair and reasonable and consistent with our constitutional requirements. This question will call into play every detail of the bill which accompanies it, and we’ve seen how that hasn’t worked in very recent referendums in the past.

I would like to flag those two issues, and I would also like to encourage those on the Justice Committee to look to the examples of our near neighbours in Australia who we’ve been recently discussing the experience that they’ve had in Queensland—with some visiting members to the New Zealand Parliament—of going from a three-year term to a four-year term. In fact, in Australia, many of the jurisdictions apart from the Federal Parliament have moved to a four-year term. We should be looking to see what was effective in those very near neighbours of ours, making it a large constitutional change like we are considering and making sure that that is done in an effective way.

I think all parties are approaching this with good faith. I wish the select committee very good luck in their deliberations—I think this is important—and perhaps, for many of us, if this does end up becoming law, it could be one of the most significant constitutional changes that we would be involved with during our time in Parliament. Please, take it seriously, do due diligence, think of the future of New Zealand, think about what’s best for New Zealanders and the type of Government and the type of change that we want to see happen for New Zealanders.

It’s a big job and there’s a high likelihood that the referendum, even if it does go through, may not be successful. I commend the bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just in relation to your previous ruling that the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s point of order was not in fact a point of order, I’m just wondering if the Speaker might like to consider Speaker’s ruling 22/4: “If members are making a point of order, they should indicate to the Chair where there has been a breach of order in the House.” I would contend that that member did not do that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Mr Court.

SIMON COURT: And one further matter, Madam Speaker, I would like you to consider whether raising trifling points of order is itself disorderly, because I didn’t see any evidence that that member actually pointed out where there was a breach.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Mr Court.

Speaking to the point of order, actually it was Standing Order 120. Specifically, thank you for reminding me to be more certain and more orderly through you, the Speaker. In fact, Standing Order 120 says, “If any [offence] or disorderly words are used,”.

I took offence to the co-leader’s speech being called “rubbish” by National. He may disagree with the content of it—that’s absolutely within his right—but to be dismissive and disgraceful, calling it rubbish, is what I took offence to. I’m very clear, just to read it so that ACT is able to take it on a little bit better next time: “If any [offence] or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present, the Speaker intervenes.”

That is what I was speaking to. I’m happy to help show the member of ACT which page that it is on—page 34, Standing Order 120.

Can I just point out to the member that that is around offence to the House. Thank you—the point’s noted.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m grateful to be able to stand up and add my kōrero in the first reading of the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill. It is part of our obligations with our ACT coalition partners, part of the ACT-National coalition agreement.

I do reference the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his first reading speech moments ago, how he said, essentially, those arguments in favour of making this change here in Aotearoa New Zealand are, essentially, that, hopefully, a longer term will lead to improved lawmaking and also prevent the disruption, as he put it—and I’m paraphrasing—to implementing long-term projects like in the infrastructure realm.

I do think of Mill Road in the Takanini and Papakura electorates, where we were ready to go in 2017. It was shovel-ready, as we said. Unfortunately, a big stop was put to that, even though it was promised by the Opposition parties at that stage, and then the Government in 2020, that Mill Road would go ahead, but they reneged on that promise. I think of that when I am thinking of what I support in this bill.

We had the fortunate situation, as the member before me said so eloquently, of speaking to a member from the Queensland Parliament—Mr Ray Stevens, the MP for Mermaid Beach. He shared with us his journey and their journey with respect to going to a four-year term over there in Queensland and how he played a strong role in that. He clearly was very much in favour of it. I do look forward to going through the due diligence, as was said, with respect to this bill in the Justice Committee. For now, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a bill where I know the conversations I’ve had in the many communities I’ve been a part of have regularly asked the question about whether or not the current term of Parliament of three years is the right length of time. What is often missed in these conversations is whether or not there’s any evidence to suggest that four years makes the policy decision-making process better. There’s always—often—a lack of evidence with respect to whether or not an analysis of why New Zealand rejected this same question or very similar question in previous times in the past.

If I can capture the sentiment of a previous contribution in the House today on this particular bill that expressed, “No wonder New Zealanders have a lack of trust in our democracy and in our democratic institutions.”—that’s why they suspect that this bill will fall over as it progresses through the processes of the House. Well, one only needs to look at the number of instances mentioned by my colleague Mr Waititi on why people have lost faith in democratic institutions in this country because of the challenges that have been put towards certain sectors of our community, tangata whenua in this instance, but other parts of our community. That’s the challenge that must be debated, must be brought forward in a sensible way, which is why, of course, the due diligence throughout this process is going to be really important.

If we look towards some of the initial analysis of these particular matters—and, as you know, Madam Speaker, the regulatory impact statement that’s tabled here for all of us to read sets out a number of those matters really well: what does this mean for Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What does this look like in terms of the many court judgments that have been passed in this country that have continued to help our democracy evolve and come to a space where, yes, still challenging, but there has been progress? These are questions that must be asked.

They must be put to a wider perspective on debate that doesn’t simply look towards “Well, what does a four-year term mean?” because there are other things in this bill, and the members on the other side of the Chamber have mentioned it, around the make-up of select committees—what does it mean for the democracy in this House? That’s simply saying—or at least putting to the New Zealand public—that if the select committee process changes under a new regime, if you will, or a four-year regime, does that necessarily mean that we’ll get better process in policy and better lawmaking? Well, the evidence just simply doesn’t suggest that. To simply try and experiment in the hope that four years is the best thing for our country moving forward and we’ll tinker with some of our democratic institutions in order to get that across the line, the evidence just simply does not back that up.

There’s a reflection I have when I talk with my adult son about this matter, because he’s one that says, “You should have a four-year term, Dad.” Well, if a Government is good enough, and we’ve seen many examples of both Labour-led and National-led Governments that have continued to have a nine-year term in office—that’s three three-year terms, they’ve managed to do really well. Two four-year terms is eight years, yet Governments have been able to manage to hold on to power for three terms. And you know what? For me, that feels about right. Kiwis actually sit back and say, “Maybe we should go for a bit of change.”, despite how things might have looked, despite how outcomes might have been for them in their particular community. It was the case in 2017 when Labour came into power, it was the case when National came into power after the Helen Clark administration, and of course there is the odd, rare phoenix, if you will, in this debate, and that was good old “Kiwi Keith” who managed to do it for four terms in this country.

It’s doable if the Government is leading the country correctly. We don’t need to change legislation to do that. However, I acknowledge that there is a debate to be had about whether or not these things have to change, because the common view of the public of this place is that it takes one year to get your feet under the desk, one year to make any change, and then one year to campaign to try and get back in for another term. Well, I get why the public are asking the question, and the public should have the opportunity to say that, but we’ve got to do it in a way that makes—like the question suggested by my colleague here—it very clear on what it is the public are set to debate.

It’s amazing to think that we’re nearly halfway through the parliamentary term already, which is a reminder to us all just how quickly three years goes.

I also want to reflect on the fact that we have had referenda on this exact issue. In fact, if you’re six months older than me, you would have at least had your say on a referendum. That is because in 1990—when I was 17½—they had a referendum, and the results were this: 69.3 percent of Kiwis supported three years, and 30.6 percent of Kiwis supported four years a term. That was 35 years ago. More than two to one supported a three-year term, but 35 years is another generational shift, and perhaps we need to test them. If we reflect, as Minister Goldsmith said, on the first referendum, it was a similar result—a similar result—68.1 percent in favour of a three-year term, so I think it’s worthy to test the tenure of the parliamentary term. It is well worth the test.

There’s also others that would like us to look at a four-year term. I think fondly of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), who conducted a poll as to whether local councils should have a four-year term. Again—a significant poll by Curia—47 percent last year on the LGNZ poll said yes to a four-year council term; 18 percent said yes as well, if the local government’s going to four years; 22 percent said no. So maybe there’s been a shift. We know through submissions that the LGNZ Electoral Reform Group, and the likes of Nick Smith, would welcome dialogue on this issue, so it is timely to have this debate.

National is very happy to support it to select committee, and then let’s open it for public submissions and let’s see what the public thinks, let’s see what the stakeholders think, let’s see what local government think, and then let’s report it back to the House. I commend this first reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. My apologies. I think I missed the first vote, which should be recorded as opposed, if it’s possible to. If it’s not, that’s OK; you just know how we feel. I did miss the first vote, so I seek leave to correct it, please.

That is the proper process, so leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no leave granted.

Now I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, and the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.