Graeme Edgeler: constitutional law expert on the Governent's plan to introduce four year terms by next election

Four-year political terms may not necessarily ensure delivery on campaign promises.

The Government's considering a referendum at the next election - to let voters decide whether to add a year on to our political terms.

It's argued allowing Parliament to take more time with its policy decisions could lead to stronger laws.

But constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler says we don't have many one-term Governments to begin with - and many in fact, last three terms.

He says most get re-elected.

"Labour and Jacinda Ardern got six years to implement their policies, the last National Government had nine years to do it."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks EDB.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
New Zealanders may get their chance to vote on extending
the political cycle at the next election. Speaking at an
event on Friday, Prime Minister Christopher Lucksen said the coalition
government planned to propose a referendum for four year terms
in twenty twenty six. To talk us through the pros
and cons of a four year electoral cycle, I am
joined by constitutional law expert Graham Edgeler. Good morning, Graham,

(00:35):
Thanks for your time.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
Good morning.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Hey. Is this a good call by Christopher Luckson.

Speaker 3 (00:40):
I think it's fine to have a vote on it.
We've public's had two votes on it before, once in
nineteen sixty seven and once again in nineteen ninety. We're
about both times. Two thirds of us said no, we
like the three year term. But yeah, I wasn't old
enough to it nineteen ninety and very few of us
are probably old enough to nineteen sixty seven. So why

(01:01):
not have.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Another Say, let's start with why you might look at,
you know, going to four years. Why should you do it?
Because there are pros and cons for this argument. What
are the pros for going to four years.

Speaker 3 (01:16):
The suggestion, there's been a suggestion a few times, for example,
that we should increase the length of time that our
councilors are elected as well, and I think probably a
good idea. If we're doing that thing, we should do
the same for the parliamentary election. But the big suggestion
is that it'll just sort of slow things down in
parliament a little, that they'll be able to take more time,

(01:39):
they won't have to rush things quite so much, and
you know, maybe they'll get better laws out of the end.
So there's a question of whether that's true. But that's
the argument most people make, and there's probably something in that.
But the question is is it big enough for to
outweigh the consequences.

Speaker 2 (01:59):
Would it give governments more time to fulfill their agenda
that they campaigned on.

Speaker 3 (02:08):
I don't know. I mean, if you look at sort
of the history of New Zealand, we don't have very
many one term governments. Yeah, yeah, In fact, we yeah,
we don't even have very many two term governments. You know,
the last labor government was two term government. The nineteen
eighties labor government was two term government. But that's sort

(02:30):
of the only time we've even had a two term government.
Most governments we either kicked them out after three three
years or or or we kicked them out after three terms.
That's just sort of historically how it's been with those
couple of exceptions.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Now.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
And so they get you know, they get re elected
usually quite often with more votes the second home round
then they got the first time. I mean you sort
of certainly had that with Labor and Descender Adern. Yeah,
they got six years to implement their policies and the
last National government had nine years to do it. And

(03:04):
so it might even be a useful thing if they
sort of take take a term and have an election
in the middle where things can slow down even more
and make sure is that the way we want to
be going.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
Because it can feel a little bit Graham, can't it
like the electoral The sort of the cycle is for
the first year, they're getting their feed under the under
the desk, they're working out what's going on, they're identifying problems,
they're changing things. They move forward at a great pace,
and then they try and kind of activate that in
the second year, and then it feels like the third
year is just becoming a year of electioneering.

Speaker 3 (03:38):
It can. I mean, certainly parliaments slightly less an election year,
but the first two years it really is sort of
sitting the same number of days, whether they're getting their
feed under the table or not. And of course, you know,
if a government gets re elected, you know, you'd hope
sort of at least most of the ministers will stay
the same and things will be able to continue going on.

(04:01):
And so that's sort of a question as well, sort
of these really big changes, do we want them to
do it in a year or even two. Maybe sort
of the three or four years over the course of
two terms might be a way to go. But equally,
you know, four years is quite standard internationally. You know,
three years. There are a few Australias three years, and

(04:21):
most of the states of Australia are three years, but
three years is internationally low as certainly, would it.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
Encourage longer, longer term bipartisan decisions. This is one of
the pros that the Prime Minister has suggested.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
I doubt it that sort of when you sort of
look at these sorts of things that the other things
that come into play are probably more important than the
term of parliament. It will be a little thing right
at the edge maybe of you know, this one case
or this other case equally out. You know, you know,

(05:01):
the last government we had had you know, Labor was
had the votes by itself off and didn't really need
to do much bipartisan think at all. You know, the
current government, you know, it needs National and Acting New
Zealand first if they want to pass anything, and well
you know it's they all have to agree. And so

(05:22):
trying to sort of bring Labor in on something where
you know, ACT doesn't agree and National wants to do
it anyway and get Labor support. I don't know that
four years would make that more likely. It's you know,
our political system as such that you know sort of
that's not really how we operate. And if you change
a lot of things and then waited twenty years and

(05:43):
see how they play out, I could imagine something like
that moving towards that direction. But sort of the way
New Zealand's government is set up overall, it is probably
more important for questions like that. You know, we have
a very strong whip for example, you know, we don't
have sort of you know, MPs who exercise their own

(06:03):
judgment in the way that see MP's in the United
Kingdom do where the government can't guarantee that it's going
to get support from its own MPs for a lot
of its policies. And you had that with a lot
of things like during brick sits, you know, you had
in the UK with their first part of the post,
a local would get elected and then the form sort
of groups and make up their mind issue by issue,

(06:24):
and they'd be like, oh, no, these are the important
things that we're definitely going to vote for, but there
would be a large other bits where it's like a
verte for that, but I want you to make this
change and sort of independent not officially independent, but sort
of more independent MPs. And then we have in New
Zealand where every MP from the National Party will vote
for or against everything, and we have very few things

(06:46):
where independent or MPs make up their minds sort of separately.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Frequent elections they act does a democratic check on the government,
don't they? I wonder if?

Speaker 3 (06:57):
Absolutely?

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (06:59):
And that's sorry.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
There you go, and.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
That's sort of one of the issues. You know, there's
lots of different ways that you can set up a government,
lots of different ways you could even set up a democracy.
You're asking the question you know, how much power should
the government have versus how much power should should parliament have?
And then you ask the question how much power should
the courts have like in the US where the courts
have a lot more power than the courts to have

(07:23):
in New Zealand, or versus how much power should parliament have?
And sort of in New Zealand, every time we've asked
that question, we say, the answer we seem to give
is okay, we're going to give the government and you know,
the cabinet, they're going to have all the power. They're
going to decide every bill that just about gets passed
in parliament. You know, members days were the only exception.
Everything else is whatever the government wants to do is

(07:43):
not only what passes, it's even what's debated. And so
we do have the issue of every time we ask
the question, which of these two things that you know,
a democracy could have this or it could have this,
It could have a low number of MP's, it could
have a written constitution, it could have an upper house.
And you know, we've probably got the right answer for
all or almost all of those questions. For a country

(08:04):
like New Zealand, we don't need an upper house horribly
don't bet a written constitution, But we do have the
issue of every time we asked that question of which
of these two options, which is both perfectly legitimate and
democracy do we pick, we almost pick the one which
gives the government more power and parliament less, or the
government more power and voters less or the government more

(08:24):
power and the courts less. And sort of every time
we ask those questions, we say, let's give extra power
to the government. Let's give extra power to the government,
and never accept us one time, let's give a little
more power to the voters. And so if you were
to change a lot of things, you know, sort of
a few years back, someone propab we should have written
constitution that should do change all of these things. If

(08:45):
you were to change your half a dozen things, that
may be if you are changing the votings term you know,
to four years as well, that would be sort of enough.
But the three year term is sort of the one
time we said, actually, voters should have the power. You know,
of these two choices, which way should we set up
our system, we should give it to voters and have
them have the power. And so if you're changing a

(09:08):
lot of things, you have more MPs so that they
could hold the government to account in a way that,
you know, because we don't have very many MP's at
the moment, they can't and like, do we need three
hundred MP's. Probably not. But if you're going to say,
you know, we want we want to take some power
away from voters, then what are you proposing to say? Okay,
well we'll change this other bit as well, so that

(09:30):
the balance sort of stays the same or even gets better.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
A lot more complicated than just a yes or a no. Graham,
thank you so much for talking us through that. Nice
to hear from your For more

Speaker 1 (09:41):
From the Sunday session with Francesca Rudgin, listen live to
news Talks there'd be from nine am Sunday, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio