Good riddance

The regime has finally decided not to push for a referendum on a four-year term this election. Good. But the bill isn't dead, and apparently won't be withdrawn - it's still on the Order Paper, hanging around to be picked up and advanced in future, by whoever wins the election. And they're not stalling it because they've decided its a bad idea; rather, the three components of the regime simply don't quite agree, so it got set aside because it's not really anyone's priority.

...except apparently Chris Hipkins. Faced with a regime which is a poster boy for why we need more accountability, not less, and which is making people hate the entire political class in a way we haven't seen since the 1990's, he's willing to put himself out there and go on record as being in favour of a proposition which has repeatedly been defeated by two-thirds margins. Because he's just that keen on being less accountable to us plebs. And then you think about what he did with an absolutely majority when he had one - nothing - and how he talks about that time now as the government "trying to do too many things". So he wants an extra year so he can do even less? (But I guess its an extra year to collect his fat salary, putting him even further into the millionaire-class while pretending to represent ordinary people...)

This regime has been a potent reminder of why we need to keep our politicians on a short leash, whatever the colour of their tie. With a unitary state, a highly-centralised government structure, and no real institutional checks and balances, the only safeguard against an executive run amok is the chance to throw them out on their arses as often as possible. I'm glad we'll get to keep that right, for the moment. But it is disturbing that so many of the political class subscribe to the elitist, anti-democratic idea that they shouldn't have to face our judgement, that they should be less accountable to us. That's not good enough. They're not good enough. They've shown by their enthusiasm for dictatorship that they cannot be trusted, so we need to shorten the leash. It is time to cut the parliamentary term to two years, and bring them back under democratic control.

A referendum on the regime

The Justice Committee has reported back on ACT's Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill, recommending that it be fundamentally amended. Instead of ACT's weird variable term length based on a pinky-promise by the executive (which is explicitly revokable with no consequences), they recommend simply a straight up-down referendum on moving to a four year term - without any additional safeguards. Which is the worst of both worlds. The only party to vote against this was (ironically) ACT - which tells us that the political elite are united in their desire for less accountability and less democracy.

Meanwhile, this regime is providing a perfect reason why a four-year term is a terrible idea (can you imagine it? An extra year of this?) And a perfect example of why we need a shorter term, not a longer one. Because given the lack of other safeguards and accountability mechanisms in our constitutional system, our only real check and balance is the frequent opportunity to throw the bums out. And as the executive accrues more and more power and behaves in ever more anti-democratic and unconstitutional ways - abusing urgency, corruption, undermining te Tiriti, cracking down on protest - we need to have more opportunities to topple them, not less.

Fortunately, this is subject to a vote. And any referendum is inevitably going to end up as a referendum on the constitutional practices of this regime. Which means we should look forward to it going down by the same margin as it did in 1967 and 1990.

Submit!

The Justice Committee has called for submissions on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill. Submissions are due by 1:00pm Thursday, 17 April 2025 (note unusual time!), so in practice you need to get it done by 16 April. You can submit at the link above.

If you're looking for reasons to oppose the bill, there's some here. Alternatively, you can just look at this government, and imagine how much worse it would be with an extra year. And possibly, you could imagine how much better it would be if we could get rid of them after two years rather than having to wait for three.

Still against a four-year term

It must be bad idea week at the Beehive. Yesterday, they were promoting vigilantism - a policy hated by everybody except the very worst people in the world. And today, they've announced that they're going to proceed with ACT's weird four-year-term bill, which would make the length of the parliamentary term indeterminate, and subject to an easily renegable or bypassable promise by politicians.

I've long been an opponent of a four year term. At best, its driven by technocrats who view democracy as a cost to be dispensed with. But underneath that is a never-quite-stated belief that politicians would make better decisions if they didn't have to worry about what voters want. That they shouldn't have to "waste time" persuading us that fucking us over is really for the better. This is both elitist and nakedly anti-democratic. Because the point of democracy isn't to make good decisions, but to make our decisions. And the point of regular elections is to keep politicians constantly thinking about whether they are serving us, rather than their donors - and to throw them out on their arses if we are unhappy with their performance.

And looking at the current government, it is clear that we need more accountability, not less. This government, with its abuse of urgency, naked corruption, and radical anti-Māori revanchism, is a poster-boy for bad government and for why we need to be able to throw politicians out quickly. The thought of another 18 months of them is bad enough; giving them a whole extra year is fucking unthinkable. But that's the sort of thing their bullshit bill will enable: next time we get a government this shit, it will last longer. Next time we get a Rimmer or a Roger Douglas or a Ruth Richardson or a Robert Muldoon, they will have more time to shit on our faces.

Pretty obviously, I don't like this idea. I hope you don't like it either. And I hope you tell the political class that, forcefully, when the bill gets to select committee, and even more forcefully if it ever gets to referendum. Aotearoa has a long history of telling politicians to go fuck themselves by huge margins on this question. Let's uphold that tradition, and make it 70% opposed. And maybe then the fuckers will finally get the fucking message.

But let's go one better. As noted above, this government is a poster-boy for bad government, a perfect argument for more accountability, not less. So lets do that. Instead of giving them more time to fuck up our lives, let's give them less. Let's cut the parliamentary term to two years.

Cut the parliamentary term

When Labour was in power, they wasted time, political capital, and scarce policy resources on trying to extend the parliamentary term to four years, in an effort to make themselves less accountable to us. It was unlikely to fly, the idea having previously lost two referendums by huge margins - but politicians gonna politician. But now, we have a truly terrible, anti-democratic government, which is hopefully reminding us of the benefits of regular change. The problem is that its not regular enough.

It is clear that a major problem in our political system is that it is not easy enough to get rid of a bad government. We need to make it easier. The way to do that is to cut the length of the parliamentary term from three years to two.

The political class will whine that its "not enough time to do anything". Bullshit. Its exactly as much time to do things as they do now - if they can convince us to give it to them. And that's the problem: they don't want to convince us. And this pack of wankers just wants to stomp on our faces.

In a democracy, the basis of legitimacy is the consent of the governed, though regular free and fair elections. Lets take that seriously, and make it more regular. Make them convince us. More nastily, keep them in constant fear for their jobs and their perks and their luxurious salary packages. They think that works for us - so let's do it to them.

Still on their bullshit

When in government, Labour pushed to extend the Parliamentary term to four years, to reduce accountability and our ability to vote out a bad government. And now, they're trying to do it through the member's ballot, with a Four-Year Parliamentary Term Legislation Bill.

The bill at least requires a referendum (the provisions for which make up almost all of the bill). But it says something about Labour's priorities that they're still pushing this bullshit, which no-one ever asked for and which has been voted down by huge majorities twice. And it also says something about their poor political instincts, that they're doing it when we have one of the least popular governments in living memory. By doing so, they invite the conclusion that they think this authoritarian, anti-environment shitshow should have had more time to do more damage. And they risk being tarred with its brush.

The stupidest of stupid reasons

One of the threats in the National - ACT - NZ First coalition agreements was to extend the term of Parliament to four years, reducing our opportunities to throw a bad government out. The justification? Apparently, the government thinks "elections are expensive".

This is the stupidest of stupid reasons for limiting our democracy, and it invites the natural question: if they're so expensive, why have them at all? Unfortunately, its not just shared by the business geniuses in national - ACT - NZ First, but also by the Ministry of Justice. Their advice to the independent electoral review panel on the issue included a list of advantages and disadvantages for various term lengths. "Election costs, both direct and indirect, are more frequently incurred" was listed as a disadvantage of a three-year term. "Longer period between election costs" was considered an advantage of a longer one. Because obviously, money is more important than democracy and accountability. The idea is expanded on in a specific topic paper, which notes that the "indirect costs" of elections may include "drops in business confidence". So, firstly, MoJ thinks business hating democracy is somehow important, and secondly, they think that NZ business confidence surveys somehow translate into real economic impacts (they do not. In fact, they're "uniquely useless in the world for predicting NZ GDP"). Which tells us rather a lot about the quality of analysis Ministry of Justice can produce these days, and should really make you worry about anything else they're giving advice on.

In reality, our elections are cheap: $180 million per election cycle. Moving to a four year term would save us all of $15 million a year, averaged over the long-term. On a government scale, that's pocket change. Anyone who treats this as a serious cost saving or a serious reason for doing something is trying to sell you something - in this case, less democracy, less accountability, and less control over our own government.

Labour's electoral review

Labour's "independent" review of the electoral system reported back today. You can read the full thing here, but most of it was basicly a rehash of the 2012 Electoral Commission review, and in response to the same questions, produced mostly the same answers: a lower threshold and removing the one-seat rule. Which gives us the same problem: a less-representative parliament. As someone who wants the most representative Parliament possible, that's not a good outcome. If people are concerned about the unfairness between small parties who win electorates and those who don't, the answer is to lower the threshold so it doesn't matter, not to punish both. But then, I guess I'm not some snobby status quo big-party voter...

The interesting answers are to the questions that weren't asked in 2012. The review has recommended lowering the voting age, and a referendum on a four-year term. The first was a foregone conclusion given the Supreme Court ruling. As for the second, its what the review was set up to recommend. But it is good to see the commitment to a referendum, given Labour's earlier idea that they could just stitch up up a deal with National to impose it by insider fiat. Hopefully the recommendation for a referendum will kill that idea, and it will certainly strengthen the argument that any change without a referendum is fundamentally illegitimate. (If there is a referendum, I will of course be voting against...)

There's also strong recommendations to crack down on political donations, including a cap on individual donations and a ban on donations from companies and other legal entities. The review has listened to the people here: we hate money in the political system, view it as a corrupt influence, and want it limited. Sadly, its the politicians, the people who want all that corrupt money, who will be making the decision.

And that's the real problem here. We saw it with the 2012 review: the self-interested politicians liked some recommendations, hated others, sought to cherry-pick them for their own advantage, but were (fortunately) deterred by voter expectations from doing so. I see no reason to think that this review will be any different. Which means that some good reforms will go undone - but so will the shit ones (and to be clear, removing the one-seat rule is shit). This afternoon, Chris Hipkins said Labour would be presenting its own ideas on the electoral system pre-election. Which makes you wonder what the point in an "independent" review was if the government is just going to ignore it and push its own solutions anyway. It just seems like another abuse of the public's good faith, and suggests that all of us who submitted to this review wasted our time, again.

Still against a four year term

Newsroom has a piece on Labour's local government review, which will apparently recommend a reduction in the voting age and a move to a four-year term. Which (because of the need for alignment with general election rules) tells us Labour has pre-determined the outcome of its electoral act review as well (of course they did). As for the merits, the same arguments that apply to central government apply to local government on both issues: a lower voting age is good, because young people have interests, and are affected by local government decisions. And a longer term is bad, because it reduces accountability and voter control. Look at your current local government: do you really want them to have another year of impunity before facing the electorate? And if you do, why not just vote for them at the next election, without surrendering control or accountability?

The primary "argument" for longer terms is that they would let government "get more done", either by insulating them from electoral pressure (an explicitly anti-democratic argument) or just by giving them more time to consider policy and bed in change. And it occurs to me that the best argument against this is this Labour government. They were elected with an absolute majority, giving them the power to do anything they wanted. But look at how little they've done. Look at what they've chosen not to do. Can anyone really argue with a straight face that they'd "get more done" if they were less accountable to the electorate? That the real barrier to them acting on inequality or housing or climate change has been lack of time, rather than lack of interest? Really?

Labour didn't rule out a capital gains tax because they lacked time to implement one. They ruled it out because it is not in their class-interest as highly-paid, wealthy property owners. They haven't dragged their feet on climate change because of lack of time - they're doing it to protect the status quo. And they haven't refused to reverse the 1990 benefit cuts or cancel WINZ debt because of lack of time. They've ruled those things out because at the end of the day they don't care and don't want to be seen as being nice to the poors.

Rather than "getting more done", if given a longer term, this government would just sit on its arse collecting its inflated salaries, while making excuses for its political choices and trying to gaslight us into thinking that everything is great. And laughing at us all the while for being fool enough to make them less accountable.

(And on the flip side, if they were a government which did things? Yeah, we want an opportunity to vote that shit out as quickly as possible, because we might not like it. Just think of what Roger Douglas or Ruth Richardson could have done with an extra year... Aren't you glad voters could nobble them when we did?)

As mentioned above, if you like a government and think it deserves more time to implement its policy programme, vote for them at the next election. But don't surrender control or allow them to be less accountable. Because that will lead to worse, less responsive, and more arrogant government, while benefitting no-one but the politicians.

Why Labour buried the OIA review

Why did Labour bury its promised review of the OIA? When the news first broke, it was about priorities: the Ministry of Justice was simply too busy with other things. A subsequent OIA release made it clear that austerity was partly to blame: years of penny-pinching by successive governments had eroded MoJ's policy capacity, to the extent it was unable to meet Ministerial demands for advice and was forced to prioritise. But now, a further release forced by the Ombudsman has made it clear: Labour killed the OIA review so MoJ could focus on the "higher priority" of giving them a four-year term.

The link is explicitly made in a less-redacted copy of a 2020 briefing on "Policy Projects". After noting the need to prioritise due to lack of capacity, the briefing included a table of projects that could be deferred. Only the OIA review line is shown (the rest being out of scope of the request), but it explicitly links deferral to the new government's "electoral projects":

What were the government's "electoral projects"? Back in December 2020 when this briefing was prepared, it included controversial changes to MMP to make the system less representative, and a surprise proposal to extend the parliamentary term from three to four years, reducing the accountability of politicians. So a project intended to improve accountability was killed in favour of one to reduce it. Which I guess shows exactly how much of a priority they place on being "the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had"...

The electoral law review

This morning the government announced an "independent" review of electoral law, to look at "changes to the voting age, the three-year Parliamentary term, funding of political parties, overseas voting and Electoral Commission recommendations on MMP". My feelings about this are... complicated.

Firstly, an independent review of the voting age would be a very good thing, and would hopefully lead to a reduction. But linking it implicitly to a four-year term is really making it a shit sandwich, and casts doubt on the whole exercise. The government has made clear its enthusiasm to be less accountable to the people (which is what a four-year term means), so they're basicly saying this "review" will be of the strapped-chicken variety, with the reviewers carefully chosen to produce the outcome they want. As for the Electoral Commission recommendations, we've already had a review of those, so the government throwing them in is basicly a way of putting off doing anything about them (an outcome I don't mind, because those recommendations would make our parliament less representative, but its slimy and dishonest. OTOH Labour originally supported that package, though that was three leaders ago, so this suggests they've changed their mind. Still slimy and dishonest though, because there's obviously something they've changed it to, which they should be up-front about). As for overseas voting, its inclusion in the review is a clear signal that the government doesn't care about the pandemic's disenfranchisement of kiwis trapped overseas.

But then there's the report-back date: "late 2023" according to the government PR, with changes to be implemented for the 2026 election. Which means a) the government is ruling out a referendum on term-length at the 2023 election (and perhaps entirely, something which would be completely illegitimate); and b) they're perfectly happy for young people to be disenfranchised (and political parties to be corrupt) for another five years. "Transformative"? My arse.

Is it worth engaging with such an exercise in bad faith? Well, the presence of the voting age means I will have to - not doing so would betray young people. But the other stuff means I'm not going to feel happy about it. Participation takes time and energy, which is a limited resource. The government demanding it so it can launder its pre-determined policy and say it has had "public consultation" is just abusive. "Consultation" you were always going to ignore isn't (see also: any national security law with an "abbreviated" select committee process).

It is obvious from the above that I do not trust this process, and I do not trust politicians to make these decisions with party and self-interest corrupting the process entirely. So what process would I like to see? IMHO, the only truly independent review would be one carried out by appropriately supported, randomly-selected citizens: a citizen's jury.

Another funny thing to die in a ditch over

Jacinda Ardern has ruled out spending her carefully hoarded political capital on supporting a wealth tax, drug reform, or even real action on climate change (which was "my generation's nuclear-free moment" just three years ago). So what is she willing to spend it on? A four year Parliamentary term: making herself and her successors less accountable to us.

Its an unpopular proposition - unlike wealth taxes or action on climate change - the two previous referenda on the issue have been defeated by almost 70% opposition each time, and any future referendum is likely to have the same result. So of course, she has been talking up the possibility of politicians conspiring to do it via a supermajority, rather than taking it to the people. Fortunately, National has now shitcanned that idea, so if she wants it to happen, she will have to ask us, and risk the humiliation of defeat. Hopefully that prospect will deter it, as it has deterred her predecessors. If not, well, it seems like a pretty funny thing for a Labour politician to want to die in a ditch over.

Status quo politicians want less democracy

I didn't watch last night's debate, in part because I'd made up my mind how I was going to vote months ago, and in part because two status quo politicians desperately spamming pre-scripted soundbites and zingers while failing to be meaningfully different in any way bores the shit out of me. But I was unsurprised to hear that both the status quo politicians on stage wanted to extend the Parliamentary term to four years. Its received wisdom among the Wellington political establishment that three years "doesn't give a government enough time to get things done", and so obviously it should be extended. Henry Cooke has spent some time demolishing this argument in Stuff today, but I think it is missing the point. Because the length of our parliamentary term is not about whether a government can "get things done" - something which seems to be no problem whatsoever when they actually want to do something - but about democracy and accountability. And a four-year term would undermine both.

The only question you need to ask yourself on this is "would you have wanted Roger Douglas to have an extra year to wreck the country"? Ruth Richardson? Winston Peters, with his vetos and foot-dragging? (Feel free to insert your political hate figure of choice). A three year term lets us veto them, and throw them out of office or saddle them with a difficult coalition partner if we don't like what they're doing. It is our sole effective means of keeping the politicians accountable and under control. And we should not let them undermine it.

Want a reason to oppose a 4-year term?

Just look at who supports it:

• Graham Stuart (CEO, Sealord Group): "The current three-year term causes governments to favour more populist policies and defer taking some of the tougher calls that are often needed to serve New Zealanders' longer term interests". That would be populist issues like eliminating slave-fishing, perhaps?
  
• David Mossop (Director, Paradox Strategic Management): "Any government of the day is going to be constrained to small incremental changes in order to achieve outcomes that are merely adaptations of the former government's agendas... A four-year, or even a five-year, term, regardless of the political agenda, therefore has to be a good thing."
  
• Kim Campbell (CEO, EMA): "What business wants is certainty . . . no matter what the circumstances may be you can factor in a plan for it, but if things keep changing all the time nothing settles down."
  
• Bob Fenwick (Managing Director, Planhorse Systems): "There are many instances in the past where governments have been voted out when they have started policies which would be of benefit to the country but which are never implemented because the other party that gets in"
  
• Eric Hertz (CEO, 2 Degrees): "As a company that is continually making large investment decisions, we need policy-makers who can execute on their longer-term view with less concern for imminent re-election battles."
  

"Certainty". "Tougher calls". "Less concern for [re-election]". I think that speaks volumes. Our business community is united in their contempt for us, and in their desire to take our sole real check on government away from us, so that it can better serve their interests.

We shouldn't let them get away with it.

Unsurprising

So, both John Key and David Shearer support a four-year parliamentary term. Colour me unsurprised. Just as turkeys will always support delaying christmas, politicians will always support extra job security for themselves - even (OK, especially) if it comes at the price of less accountability to the people who elect them.

Oddly, though, neither Key nor Shearer really makes an argument in support of that longer term, sticking to general comments like "it makes more sense" and calling three years too short. Again, that's hardly surprising. Because when you unpack it, the "argument" for a four-year term basically boils down to the proposition that elected representatives would make better decisions if they didn't have to worry about what voters want. Which is a deeply undemocratic idea, and one which raises all sorts of questions about who these politicians think they are making decisions for (hint: if they're worried about what voters will think, its not us).

Fortunately, s268 of the Electoral Act limits their ability to change this without our consent. While it does allow changes to the length of the term with only a 75% supermajority, constitutional propriety will require a referendum. And if 1967 and 1990 are anything to go by, they will lose that by a wide margin. The question is whether they'll get the message this time...

What it boils down to

"Elected representatives would make better decisions if they didn't have to worry about what voters wanted"

While no-one is so bold as to put it that way, that's the core idea underlying the push for a longer parliamentary term. But when put like that, its flaws immediately become apparent. Better for whom? Certainly not for voters! Otherwise, they wouldn't need to worry about what we wanted.

But apart from tacitly endorsing dictatorship, it also misses the point. Democracy isn't about making good decisions - its about making our decisions. And so politicians should constantly be looking over their shoulders and asking themselves "is this what my voters want"? "Will I lose my job if I do this"? And if they're not, we need to ask: who are they making those decisions for? Because it certainly won't be us.

Constitutional opportunism

So, having (apparently) failed to roll back MMP and inflict an unfair voting system on us, the Auckland business community, through their mouthpiece the Herald, is pushing for a four-year term. Their chief argument? John Key is such a nice man. Yes, really:

The thought is not new. In the most recent referendum on the subject, in 1990, 69.3 per cent of those who voted opposed the notion. That rejection must, however, be placed in context. It was held at the tail-end of a two-term Labour Government whose disdain for the public view led eventually to the introduction of MMP.

Politicians were held in particularly low esteem, and people were in no mood to endorse a device that would make governments even less responsive to the electorate.

Things are different now. John Key has proved a particularly popular Prime Minister, in large part because he has kept such a close eye on public sentiment.

And because John Key is such a nice man, the Herald thinks he should force us to vote on this now, exploiting his popularity (or as Fran O'Sullivan would put it, "spending some political capital") to ram this change through without public consultation or opportunity for debate offered by the constitutional review process.

Of course, they trot out the usual technocratic argument as well: "three years isn't enough time to do anything! The government spends all its time worrying about the next election". Which is precisely the point. We don't want our government to be able to do anything (or at least, anything too quickly without us being able to revisit it in short order). And we want our politicians to be constantly worrying about their re-election. Because worrying about re-election is what stops them from doing stuff we don't like (such as - and this is their example, not mine - more privatisation). Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson didn't worry about re-election - and we're still cleaning up their mess.

What the argument for a longer term boils down to is a claim that we would be "better" governed if we had less democracy, and politicians were less accountable to the people for their decisions. And that is a deeply undemocratic idea. The opportunism of the Herald in pushing for change now is just icing on that undemocratic cake.

Sadly, the length of the Parliamentary term is on the agenda for the constitutional review, so we'll all get to have our say on it. And I expect our politicians will stitch up a deal for more job security for themselves to put it to the vote after the review reports back in 2013 or so. And then we'll just have to hand their arses to them again, just as we did in 1967 and 1990. The question is whether they'll actually get the message this time.