Extending MP terms to four years would allow more 'thoughtful analysis', expert argues

The length of time it takes governments to fulfill promises is a point of criticism for many, but should the three-year term be increased to four years?

Professor Jonathon Boston from Victoria University has the co-authored a recent report on parliamentary reform suggesting for Parliament to extend the term and increase the number of MPs.

"We're an outlier by international standards with a very short parliamentary term. Most countries have either a four- or a five-year term, and in many cases they are fixed-term so you can't have an early election," Professor Boston explained on TVNZ1's Breakfast this morning.

He said the key arguments for a longer term "relate to having more time and opportunity to address big, long-term issues, whether they are environmental, economic and housing and so on".

A longer term would also allow for more time to "consult, deliberate and seek to build a consensus across the political spectrum to address the hard challenges that we face", he said.

Mr Boston said New Zealand's move in recent years to an MMP system "makes the case for a four-year term that much stronger".

"Single-party Government with a clear majority, obviously, is much easier to decide what your policy is and implement it," he said. "But when you have to negotiate across the House - in quite a complicated situation sometimes - you need more time. And you don't just need to negotiate with other MPs, to address the big issues of the day. You need wide public consultation, and you need the capacity to be able to build consensus on the way forward."

Earlier on Breakfast, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that while being part of a coalition Government "takes time to manage", it "is worth the investment of time".

She added that extending the parliamentary term "is not on our agenda", but said, "if people feel really strongly about it, let's debate it".

Mr Boston added that having a shorter term "actually increases the turnover of MPs, which then reduces the expenditure of experience and expertise you have in the House".

"We have a turnover of roughly a quarter of MPs every Parliament, so a lot of new MPs each time, and aside from that, just having a longer term means that politicians can take a somewhat more measured approach to decision-making, which will hopefully result in better decisions," he said. 

Mr Boston said when formulating policy, you "can't necessarily assume you're going to be there in three or four or five years' time".

"Having a three-year term really does limit your capacity and time to do thoughtful analysis, so four years isn't going to make a radical difference either way.

"I think this is a question where you have to balance the pros and cons. In my view, there's a stronger case for a four-year term than there is for a three-year term."

He said while some people have criticised the four-year parliamentary term, preferring instead to shorten it, we "also want good government, and we also want adequate parliamentary scrutiny of good government".

"You really want a package of changes, not just a one-off, one-shot approach to this," he said. "We need to take these issues of accountability seriously, and we need to enhance parliamentary accountability."