While it may delay voter oversight, it could allow more time for policy development and legislation.
New Zealanders will be given the chance to vote on whether to extend Parliament’s term from three to four years, under legislation introduced as part of the government’s coalition agreement.
The proposal, backed by all three governing parties—National, New Zealand First, and ACT—will first go to a Select Committee for public submissions.
If it passes through Parliament, a referendum held at the same time as the next election. If voters support the change, the parliamentary term would be extended to four years.
The ACT Party has added a condition to the proposal: Parliament must agree to give opposition parties more control over select committees before any extension to a four-year term can be considered.
ACT argues this would improve legislative scrutiny, ensure flawed bills are properly amended, and more account taken of the public’s views.
Parliament would need to approve this change within three months, allowing the Prime Minister to request an extension of the current—but only if voters approve the change in the referendum.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the Select Committee will determine whether there is strong public support and whether voters should have a straightforward choice between a three-or four-year term.
“Both the National-Act and National-New Zealand First coalition agreements include supporting the Bill to select committee. At this stage, no decisions have been made on whether [it] will proceed beyond this,” Goldsmith said.New Zealand and Australia are among the few countries with a three-year parliamentary term; most have four or five. Australia also has greater checks on executive power through its Senate and committees.
Earlier referendums in 1967 and 1990 rejected extending the term by just over a two-thirds majority.
A 2023 independent electoral review (pdf) recommended putting the issue to another public vote, saying that “the arguments between a three- or four-year term of parliament are finely balanced.”
The explanatory note to the Bill says a “short electoral cycle is not always conducive to good law-making.”
While it could weaken accountability by delaying voter oversight, the change could give the government more time to develop policies and pass legislation.
The Select Committee will now review the proposal before Parliament decides its next steps.