• Full Story

NZ Parliament term questioned

Email
Print

NZ Parliament term questioned

3News NZ

NZ First leader Winston Peters says the current term is not long enough (file)

NZ First leader Winston Peters says the current term is not long enough (file)

A business leader is calling for an increase in the length of the term of Parliament in New Zealand and is finding support among politicians.

Mainfreight managing director Don Braid said better policy decision would be made if the term of parliament was longer than the current three years.

"Here in New Zealand we're getting short-term populist policies made, which in turn is giving us a twisted poor-performing economy," Mr Braid said on programme Q+A today.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the term of Parliament was not long enough.

"We've had referenda on this in the past but every timid voter, whether on the left or right, thinks that they might not win so they don't want the enemy to have four years," he said.

National's Judith Collins said the current term of three years was not long enough, while Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said "three years with the Nats in power is a really long time".

She said citizens needed to decide electoral law and the issue needed to be put to a referendum.

In a referendum on the subject in 1990, 69.3 percent of those who voted were against extending the term of Parliament to four years from three years.

NZN

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

13/02/2013 1:27:26 p.m.

Geoffrey Dunbar wrote:

TV3's 6PM News last week amply showed to what lengths the country's establishment is willing to go in support of a four-year term. When it first broadcast the Prime Minister's comments, it included a background graphic showing selected terms for other govertnments. Next to the US was shown the number "4". While the American President is indeed elected for 4-year terms, the US Congress (the most comparable part to our Parliament) is only elected for TWO-year terms. This fact was nowhere mentioned. Misleading, indeed!

3/12/2012 10:30:35 a.m.

dave wrote:

I would like to see fours years, maybe 5, but i think four years would be better. I know that three years is too short

2/12/2012 5:01:50 p.m.

Kathy wrote:

I agree Ned though I think a week for them is a little too much to take. @Z650Steve neither party knows where the money is coming from.. perhaps the left can go after the elite wealth that were reported worldwide in July 2012 to be hiding 21 Trillion dollars in tax havens like NZ. Or perhaps they can go after the tax evaders here in NZ that were said to be evading anywhere up to 6 Billion dollars in tax's per year. Go after the real criminals steve.. the ones like John Key.

2/12/2012 2:58:06 p.m.

z650Steve wrote:

What should be done is when an MP leaves parliment, they leave all the perks behind too.

So Kathy, where do you think the other inept group are going to get the money from to do what they want?

2/12/2012 1:58:31 p.m.

Ned wrote:

Yea vision and guts alright........... vision to see where more ripoffs of NZers can be had, and the guts to make poor families poorer. National and ACT should be given 1 week terms only lol

2/12/2012 1:32:18 p.m.

cyril wrote:

Yeah JT good idea but who are you going to replace them with. At presant the replacements would be another worse bunch of self serving obsessed comedians who know less and are even more into fairy land than what we got.

2/12/2012 12:06:27 p.m.

jt wrote:

Most ordinary kiwis these days would be lucky to get a three year contract! If the govt of the day does a GOOD job, they should get voted back for a further term (of course in some cases that also happens with bad corrupt govts) We don't need longer terms, we need BETTER GOVT! Start by getting rid of the current bunch of self-serving auckland obsessed comedians.

2/12/2012 11:39:48 a.m.

Erm... wrote:

The term is the problem, as is MMP. Both lead to short term, weak Government. The term should be 5 years, and MMP should be removed. THEN we might get some Government with vision and guts.

2/12/2012 11:32:05 a.m.

Daver93030 wrote:

The Road Transport lobby group (trucks) strikes again. How about some consideration for commuters, e.g. City Rail Link etc, rather than worrying about the political term? If we had a longer term we would need an upper house to install some checks and balances for example.

2/12/2012 11:04:28 a.m.

Ryan wrote:

The issue isn't the term - it's the politicians who are only interested in being able to show results before the next election. Politicians aren't interested in expensive long-term policies that will save money in the long-run because there's no gain in political capital for themselves. Adding an extra year won't solve that - changing what kind of people we elect may