ACT Party Challenges Select Committee’s Four-Year Term Proposal

A select committee has recommended advancing a referendum on a four-year parliamentary term, but it has modified key elements proposed by the ACT Party. The changes were supported by David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party, who initially sought a system where four-year terms would only apply when the government transferred control of select committees to the opposition. Under his proposal, the existing three-year term would remain in effect otherwise.

The ACT Party secured an agreement from the National Party to advance Seymour’s bill through its first reading within 15 months. However, as of January 2022, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith confirmed that National had yet to determine its stance on further support for the legislation.

Local Government New Zealand, which advocates for a four-year term, expressed reservations about Seymour’s framework. Concerns were raised that his approach could misalign central government elections with local government elections, thus creating voter confusion regarding the length of elected terms.

The select committee noted that many submitters shared these concerns, highlighting potential instability and confusion for voters. It stated, “A variable term could also create practical challenges, including if parliamentary elections and local government elections sometimes coincided.” Additionally, the committee emphasized that this uncertainty could affect electoral laws and public sector reporting obligations.

In response, the committee proposed a straightforward amendment: if voters endorse the change in a referendum, parliamentary elections would shift to a strict four-year cycle. The recommendation aims to eliminate the variable term concept introduced by clause 5 of Seymour’s initial bill.

The referendum could potentially take place during either of the next two general elections following the enactment of the new law. If the public supports the proposal, the change would take effect on October 30, 2031. The government, in principle, agreed that a referendum could occur alongside the next general election in 2026, pending the bill’s progress.

The ACT Party issued a minority report opposing the committee’s recommendations. It asserted that it would only endorse the four-year term if stronger checks and balances were incorporated to safeguard democratic accountability. The minority view stated, “A four-year term without stronger opposition powers at select committees tips the balance too far in favour of the government of the day.”

In a concurrent development, the Justice Committee released a separate report with unanimous support for legislation that would create a framework for government-initiated referendums, which could also be utilized for the four-year term referendum. This proposed legislation, however, focuses on the mechanics of conducting referendums and is not specifically tailored for the parliamentary term subject.

If enacted, the framework and the laws supporting it would expire on October 31, 2031. The outcome of this debate surrounding the four-year term proposal highlights significant questions about democratic processes and the balance of power within the New Zealand government.