Summarised by Centrist
New Zealand’s government enjoys unchecked executive power, and extending the parliamentary term from three to four years won’t change that, argues political professor Richard Shaw.
The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill, an ACT Party initiative with some cross-party support, would allow a prime minister to extend parliament to four years at the start of a new term.
However, this would not strengthen democracy or accountability—it would simply give governments more time in office without fixing deeper issues in governance.
New Zealand is already an “executive paradise,” as former PM Geoffrey Palmer put it. Unlike most countries, it has no codified constitution, no Supreme Court oversight, and no upper house to check government power.
Instead, voters rely on frequent elections to hold politicians accountable. Historically, Kiwis have rejected longer terms in referendums (1967 and 1990), valuing more frequent electoral oversight over government stability.
Supporters argue that a four-year term would improve policymaking by giving ministers time to develop expertise and avoid rushed legislative cycles.
The Ministry of Justice has raised concerns that the bill is “constitutionally and practically problematic,” warning it could undermine democratic accountability.
Critics fear it could allow the executive to dictate how parliament functions, further shifting power away from elected representatives.
Read more over at The Conversation
Image: Tom Ackroyd
