Peter Dunne: Political Commentator on David Seymour's push for a four-year parliamentary term

David Seymour is pushing for New Zealand to adopt a four-year parliamentary term.

The ACT Party leader says in a longer term, select committees would be organised differently to ensure the opposition always has a majority there.

Political Commentator Peter Dunne says the government will soon put the issue to a referendum.

LISTEN ABOVE.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Begins.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
So actually that David Semo was making the case for
a New Zealand adopting a four year parliamentary term. It's
part of the coalition agreement, he says. If you're worried
about that giving the government too much power, he says,
in exchange, select committees will be organized differently to make
sure that the opposition always has a majority at the
Select Committee, which doesn't occur at the moment. It's understood

(00:21):
the government will soon introduce legislation that will put the
issue to a referendum. There's own lots to unpack here.
Political commentator Peter Dunn is with me.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
Hello Peter, Hello Andrew.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Four year turn a good idea.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Well, I'm personally in favor. I always have been for
one simple reason. At the moment, with the three year term,
you really get about two years of effective government, the
first six months for settling in in the last six
months of battling down for the hatchet. So a four
year term would give you a three year run at least,
which makes it easier I think for implementing long term

(00:54):
policy changes. I don't have the same propensity to chop
and change every election.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
So look, our part can actually push through legislation quickly
and not to have been criticized about the lack of scrutiny.
But should we really remove the three year check in
with the voters?

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Well, it depends. I mean, some people say three years
is too long for a bad government, but too short
for a good government. But if you look around the world,
you know, most countries have been moving to a four
year term. In Britain it's five, In Ireland, I think
it's four, Australia it's got four years. In a number
of the states. Presidential term in america's four, So you know,

(01:31):
I think we're a bit of an outlier at three.
But I think the additional year would just give a
bit more stability and focus to government that wouldn't always
be sort of chopping and changing because the next election
was just around the corner.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
And David wants to change the Select Committees, which at
the moment they have more governmental members and opposition members.
He wants to give opposition the majority on Select committees
as a as a check in Balas good idea or
bad weird, I think.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
That's a really good idea. Actually, when I was a minister,
I dealt with situations where I had the Select committee
looking at my legislation had an opposition majority or an
opposition chair, and I actually found that that they work
probably more constructively because they were constant they had They
weren't this jet to sort of cause mayhem. They were
there to do a good job. So I think giving

(02:16):
a majority on select committees to the opposition is a
good idea. It would be a good check and a
good balance. But it would also make the opposition lead
to act responsibly because I think the public will see
through if they just saw that as a way to
disrupt stop.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
Everything, Yeah, and then we'll end out in a level
of stasis and stagnation and just sitting there going nowhere.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Yeahah, of course, I think it's a good idea.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
So my final question is it's going to a referendum.
I think that's appropriate because the people should say because
it's the people's system, it's the people's votes, et cetera,
blah blah blah. But I think it's such a big
constitutional change it should be a supermajority, a seventy five
percent majority to get this so that we're all on
the same page. What do you think of that?

Speaker 1 (02:53):
Yeah, well, it certainly it should be decided by a referendum,
because for the reasons you've set out a supermajority, whether
it's seventy five five percent or sixty percent or something,
I think it is a point worth considering. One of
the controversies you remember about MMP was that the final
vote was passed something by I think it was fifty
four percent, and people said that was a bit too close.
So I think some sort of a safeguard there to

(03:14):
make sure that whatever the outcome, it was clearcut would
be appropriate.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Very good, Peter Dunn, always a pleasure to speak with.
You have yourself a great weekend.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.