A decision around extending political terms from three years to four may be put to voters in the next election.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the Government may put the matter to referendum in 2026.
Luxon expressed confidence there is support for a four-year term across the House.
University of Otago New Zealand Politics PhD candidate Michael Swanson tells Kerre Woodham a four-year term could change voter behaviour from keeping the current government in power to allow them time to implement their policies.
The state of the opposition’s readiness to govern should be constant, so that when new parties are voted in there is no warm-up period whilst in power.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carry Wood of Mornings podcast from
News Talks d B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
A decision around extending political terms from three years to
four maybe put to voters at the next election. Prime
Minister Christopher Luxon says the government may put the matter
to referendum in twenty twenty six. He's expressed confidence there
is support for a four year term across the House
to discuss I'm joined by a University of Otago's PhD
candidate Michael Swanson. A very good morning to.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
You, Hi, Kerry, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Oh, no, delighted to have your expertise on this. I'm
intuitively in favor of the four years because of that
old maxim that three years means one for finding your feet,
two for doing some work, three for campaigning. At least
with four years we'd get two years of solid work
out of them, would you agree.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, that's probably pretty accurate. And I think the Prime
Minister was also right when he talked about the fact that,
you know, we haven't had a one term government since
the mid seventies, and that's largely because New Zealanders give
keep weis have that idea of a fear go. So
after three years they sort of say, well, you haven't
had a real chance to implement what you want to do,
(01:17):
so let's give you another three If we gave them
four years, that might change somewhat. So there's that element
as well.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, and it is that sense of fear go, isn't
it where you think, oh, well, the poor things, they
haven't had much time. But it does beg the question
of what the hell we're paying an opposition party for
if they're not ready to govern the moment they get
the word go from the governor General.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
I do agree on that, and I think all parties
on the other side of the House should be ready
to go at any moment's notice. It's not so much
are we build for our three years and then we
present something. There should be this kind of constant we
are the alternative and we have something else to offer.
So this idea that in three years time they're not
quite ready and they need a bit longer or they're
(02:05):
still building towards that is slightly off putting. A few
of you are wanting a really effective opposition.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Yeah, I was telling my listeners earlier and it still
rankles that when I had Chris Hopkins and he was
like yeah, we weren't really ready to go on to government.
I'm like, you had nine years in opposition, What in
the name of God were you doing?
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Absolutely and nine years is a phenomenal amount of time
to do that sort of same. But three years is
absolutely enough, and four years it would give them even
less of an argument in that space. I think if
we extended to four year terms, it's not just on
the government to deliver within four years, but also the
(02:48):
other side of the House to propose a really clear
alternative within that four years.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
What are the caveats that you have around moving to
a four year term. Can we just do it with
the stroke of a pen and expect to see an
improvement or does something else have to happen.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
I think doing it in isolation is difficult, largely because,
and I've talked about this previously, where we have the
idea of the supremacy of Parliament, where Parliament almost can
do kind of what they like to an extent, and
it's really only every three years that we get to
judge them on what they've done and what they've achieved,
(03:26):
and what they've said and how they've acted. So you
need to implement a number of other measures. A number
that I would like to see are around some of
the more direct democracy kind of positions, things like more
accessible MPs, having town hall meetings or hosting citizens assemblies,
and greater use of referendums. I think we shy away
(03:49):
from referendums. We always talk about the cost of them,
but it's a really good way to get the citizens'
involvement in particular issues.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Michael, I can tell that you haven't listened to talk
radio for any extended length of time overnight.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
No, no, No, you're accurate right there.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Because had you done so, you would hear conversations like, oh,
when I voted for that nice mister Peters, I didn't
realize i'd get the weather man, And I'm like, I'm sorry, Well,
you know, when I ticked for Winston, I didn't think
i'd get that nice man from the weather But you
taxed for them, you know, you ticked for New Zealand first,
so they're going to bring MPs with them. Ah, they
(04:33):
are just sticking twice for Winston to make doubly sure
he got in. There are many conversations like that. Do
I trust my fellow citizens too? On referenda of you know,
multiple referenda.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
No, not really. And so another factor of that is
that civics education side of things. Now, you can't lead
a horse to water, but you can give it as
much information as possible to try and make the right
decisions and the right decisions for them and their communities
and their families and whatever else. So civic education, and
when we talk about civics education, it's not just at schools,
(05:08):
it's across the board. It's making that sort of wide
public information campaigns available to people so that then they
have as much information as possible. But it is still
phenomenal that after thirty odd years of MMP that we
still have this misunderstanding of what you are getting when
you do your two tacks exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
And if you have a look at the disengagement from
you know, you would say local politics, where there is
more chance that you can affect change, where there is
an ability to be able to talk to your counselors,
people are switched off completely. I mean, I think ideologically
this sounds fine. In reality, we're just seeing people moving
(05:51):
further and further away from engaging in any form of politics.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
And part of that, I think has been a lot
of the way we discuss things. It's very antagonistic. We're
always trying to fight each other on particular issues. It's
almost as if when we go out to talk about
an issue, we're looking for a fight rather than actually,
what are the options on the table? What are these
going to actually do? What are the solutions that might
come out of this discussion. It's descended into a much
(06:19):
more sort of dirty and like I say, antagonistic way
of discussion discussing issues. We've we've lost that ability to
stolen from another group's analogy. It's that ability to disagree agreeably.
It's that that seems to be missing in our current
way of discussing discussing politics.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
And yet if we look around our group of friends
or acquaintances, and maybe I'm just lucky, but I have
got a lot of friends who vote all across the
political spectrum, from from Green's a couple into Patimari right
through to Act. You know, so we can all have
(06:59):
a barbecue, and it would be nice to see that
reflected across the nation really in terms of how we
discuss politics.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Absolutely, and if we can do that and we can
have those discussions amongst our friends, it would be a
great thing. If we could expand that further and have
them as communities, and have them as towns and cities,
to actually have those discussions, open, free, honest conversations about
these issues, to actually feed into the process, to actually
(07:28):
let the politicians know these are the things that matter
to us and why they matter and what we would
like to see downe about them.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
When it comes to the referendum, there's been no mention
of whether or not it will be binding.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Yes, that's always a bit of a sticking point. I
think it needs to be binding, just in my opinion.
It needs to be binding to have any real effect
on what happens. But I think there is growing and
the prime is to mention this growing support across Parliament.
So even if it wasn't binding, I think there's a
(08:04):
greater interest in moving in this direction from our political parties.
So if there was a non binding referendum that supported
that perspective, I think it would have more sort of
leeway than some of the other issues that might go
to referendum.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I would really rather have the education first and then
look at binding referendum on multiple issues down the track.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Yes, that's a fair point too. I think one of
the things we've learned from previous referendum is that sometimes
people just vote because they hear certain things or see
certain things and go that sounds bad, I'll vote against that,
instead of actually taking the time to really dive into
what does this mean, what does this look like in practice?
And it would be I would like to see a
(08:54):
sort of a suite of those civics programs and alternatives
put in place rather than just a simple we will
move to a four year term. So I would like
to see more than just that as part of the discussion.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Sure, and just finally, is there any way of holding
our opposition parties to account to ensure that they are
in fact giving us value for money while they are
in opposition A report?
Speaker 3 (09:21):
I think in the mind it's very similar to with government.
It's at the moment, it's really only at election time
unless you can turn up to events that they are
holding and you can go and see them and you
can lobby them directly for what you want to do.
But outside of that, our system is very much set
up to hold government to account rather than the whole
(09:44):
of Parliament to account except for every three years.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Such a shame. Thank you so much, Michael and good
luck with the PhD Michael Swanson, New Zealand Politics, PhD candidate,
University of A Targeting.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the carry Wood of Mornings podcast from
News Talks d B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
A decision around extending political terms from three years to
four maybe put to voters at the next election. Prime
Minister Christopher Luxon says the government may put the matter
to referendum in twenty twenty six. He's expressed confidence there
is support for a four year term across the House
to discuss I'm joined by a University of Otago's PhD
candidate Michael Swanson. A very good morning to.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
You, Hi, Kerry, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Oh, no, delighted to have your expertise on this. I'm
intuitively in favor of the four years because of that
old maxim that three years means one for finding your feet,
two for doing some work, three for campaigning. At least
with four years we'd get two years of solid work
out of them, would you agree.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, that's probably pretty accurate. And I think the Prime
Minister was also right when he talked about the fact that,
you know, we haven't had a one term government since
the mid seventies, and that's largely because New Zealanders give
keep weis have that idea of a fear go. So
after three years they sort of say, well, you haven't
had a real chance to implement what you want to do,
(01:17):
so let's give you another three If we gave them
four years, that might change somewhat. So there's that element
as well.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, and it is that sense of fear go, isn't
it where you think, oh, well, the poor things, they
haven't had much time. But it does beg the question
of what the hell we're paying an opposition party for
if they're not ready to govern the moment they get
the word go from the governor General.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
I do agree on that, and I think all parties
on the other side of the House should be ready
to go at any moment's notice. It's not so much
are we build for our three years and then we
present something. There should be this kind of constant we
are the alternative and we have something else to offer.
So this idea that in three years time they're not
quite ready and they need a bit longer or they're
(02:05):
still building towards that is slightly off putting. A few
of you are wanting a really effective opposition.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Yeah, I was telling my listeners earlier and it still
rankles that when I had Chris Hopkins and he was
like yeah, we weren't really ready to go on to government.
I'm like, you had nine years in opposition, What in
the name of God were you doing?
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Absolutely and nine years is a phenomenal amount of time
to do that sort of same. But three years is
absolutely enough, and four years it would give them even
less of an argument in that space. I think if
we extended to four year terms, it's not just on
the government to deliver within four years, but also the
(02:48):
other side of the House to propose a really clear
alternative within that four years.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
What are the caveats that you have around moving to
a four year term. Can we just do it with
the stroke of a pen and expect to see an
improvement or does something else have to happen.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
I think doing it in isolation is difficult, largely because,
and I've talked about this previously, where we have the
idea of the supremacy of Parliament, where Parliament almost can
do kind of what they like to an extent, and
it's really only every three years that we get to
judge them on what they've done and what they've achieved,
(03:26):
and what they've said and how they've acted. So you
need to implement a number of other measures. A number
that I would like to see are around some of
the more direct democracy kind of positions, things like more
accessible MPs, having town hall meetings or hosting citizens assemblies,
and greater use of referendums. I think we shy away
(03:49):
from referendums. We always talk about the cost of them,
but it's a really good way to get the citizens'
involvement in particular issues.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Michael, I can tell that you haven't listened to talk
radio for any extended length of time overnight.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
No, no, No, you're accurate right there.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Because had you done so, you would hear conversations like, oh,
when I voted for that nice mister Peters, I didn't
realize i'd get the weather man, And I'm like, I'm sorry, Well,
you know, when I ticked for Winston, I didn't think
i'd get that nice man from the weather But you
taxed for them, you know, you ticked for New Zealand first,
so they're going to bring MPs with them. Ah, they
(04:33):
are just sticking twice for Winston to make doubly sure
he got in. There are many conversations like that. Do
I trust my fellow citizens too? On referenda of you know,
multiple referenda.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
No, not really. And so another factor of that is
that civics education side of things. Now, you can't lead
a horse to water, but you can give it as
much information as possible to try and make the right
decisions and the right decisions for them and their communities
and their families and whatever else. So civic education, and
when we talk about civics education, it's not just at schools,
(05:08):
it's across the board. It's making that sort of wide
public information campaigns available to people so that then they
have as much information as possible. But it is still
phenomenal that after thirty odd years of MMP that we
still have this misunderstanding of what you are getting when
you do your two tacks exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
And if you have a look at the disengagement from
you know, you would say local politics, where there is
more chance that you can affect change, where there is
an ability to be able to talk to your counselors,
people are switched off completely. I mean, I think ideologically
this sounds fine. In reality, we're just seeing people moving
(05:51):
further and further away from engaging in any form of politics.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
And part of that, I think has been a lot
of the way we discuss things. It's very antagonistic. We're
always trying to fight each other on particular issues. It's
almost as if when we go out to talk about
an issue, we're looking for a fight rather than actually,
what are the options on the table? What are these
going to actually do? What are the solutions that might
come out of this discussion. It's descended into a much
(06:19):
more sort of dirty and like I say, antagonistic way
of discussion discussing issues. We've we've lost that ability to
stolen from another group's analogy. It's that ability to disagree agreeably.
It's that that seems to be missing in our current
way of discussing discussing politics.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
And yet if we look around our group of friends
or acquaintances, and maybe I'm just lucky, but I have
got a lot of friends who vote all across the
political spectrum, from from Green's a couple into Patimari right
through to Act. You know, so we can all have
(06:59):
a barbecue, and it would be nice to see that
reflected across the nation really in terms of how we
discuss politics.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Absolutely, and if we can do that and we can
have those discussions amongst our friends, it would be a
great thing. If we could expand that further and have
them as communities, and have them as towns and cities,
to actually have those discussions, open, free, honest conversations about
these issues, to actually feed into the process, to actually
(07:28):
let the politicians know these are the things that matter
to us and why they matter and what we would
like to see downe about them.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
When it comes to the referendum, there's been no mention
of whether or not it will be binding.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Yes, that's always a bit of a sticking point. I
think it needs to be binding, just in my opinion.
It needs to be binding to have any real effect
on what happens. But I think there is growing and
the prime is to mention this growing support across Parliament.
So even if it wasn't binding, I think there's a
(08:04):
greater interest in moving in this direction from our political parties.
So if there was a non binding referendum that supported
that perspective, I think it would have more sort of
leeway than some of the other issues that might go
to referendum.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I would really rather have the education first and then
look at binding referendum on multiple issues down the track.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Yes, that's a fair point too. I think one of
the things we've learned from previous referendum is that sometimes
people just vote because they hear certain things or see
certain things and go that sounds bad, I'll vote against that,
instead of actually taking the time to really dive into
what does this mean, what does this look like in practice?
And it would be I would like to see a
(08:54):
sort of a suite of those civics programs and alternatives
put in place rather than just a simple we will
move to a four year term. So I would like
to see more than just that as part of the discussion.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Sure, and just finally, is there any way of holding
our opposition parties to account to ensure that they are
in fact giving us value for money while they are
in opposition A report?
Speaker 3 (09:21):
I think in the mind it's very similar to with government.
It's at the moment, it's really only at election time
unless you can turn up to events that they are
holding and you can go and see them and you
can lobby them directly for what you want to do.
But outside of that, our system is very much set
up to hold government to account rather than the whole
(09:44):
of Parliament to account except for every three years.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Such a shame. Thank you so much, Michael and good
luck with the PhD Michael Swanson, New Zealand Politics, PhD candidate,
University of A Targeting.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.