US President Donald Trump’s tariff policy is changing by the day, as international investment markets experience unprecedented volatility.
It all started last week in the White House Rose Garden, when the President revealed his tariff plan to address US trade imbalances and protect American economic interests.
The tariff rates reflected a combination of economic, political, and strategic objectives, with the specific methodology based on trade deficits.
The basic tariff for a country was calculated as one half of the ratio of the US trade deficit with a country, to that country’s exports to the US.
For New Zealand, since the US only exported $4.5 billion worth of goods to us in 2024, while we exported $5.6 billion worth of goods to them, the US trade deficit was $1.1 billion. So, our tariff was calculated as one half of the ratio of $1.1 billion to $5.6 billion [1/2x($1.1/$5.6)=0.098] or 9.8 percent – resulting in the minimum rate of 10 percent.
Countries with the largest trade imbalances were hit with the highest tariffs, which ranged up to 49 percent.
There were a number of special cases including for countries where penalty tariffs were being applied because of their involvement with illegal drug supply chains, as well as exclusions for goods like aluminium and steel, which already had tariffs applied during the President’s first term.
Goods deemed critical to the US were exempted from the new regime, including pharmaceuticals, lumber articles, and minerals sourced from a range of countries including New Zealand.
So how will the tariff changes affect New Zealand?
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Economics Professor Niven Winchester of Auckland University of Technology analysed the likely impact of the tariff rates announced by the President:
“To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as ‘computable general equilibrium models’ – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.
“Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs – and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods. New Zealand (0.29 percent) and Brazil (0.28 percent) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by US$397 per year.”
Auckland University’s Professor Robert MacCulloch suggests one of the reasons New Zealand could see a rise in GDP per capita of around NZ$700 per person is that, facing higher prices “demand from US consumers will drop. To the extent overseas producers try to increase sales by selling more into markets like New Zealand, we will become spoilt for choice and pay lower prices.”
In his address, President Trump explained the reasoning behind his tariff policy:
“I, Donald J Trump, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and US trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.”
He explained that in January he had asked his administration to investigate the cause of the country’s large trade deficits and report on the economic and national security implications.
They found, “Large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.”
In other words, instead of trade deals with the US being reciprocal, with each country importing and exporting around the same value of goods, the US imports far more than they export. This has severely undermined their manufacturing base, resulting in fewer jobs and a less resilient and independent country.
The President said he wanted to re-establish reciprocity in trade to enable the US to strengthen its economic base and rebuild a security umbrella for citizens and allies.
His ultimate goal is to use tariffs to switch the US from taxing labour to taxing imports, using the funds collected to lower income tax towards zero for most Americans.
Tariffs have played a big part in American history. It’s how the US government funded itself in the early years. One of the first laws ever passed by the Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789, which imposed a five percent tax on most imports. For over a century, tariffs provided over 90 percent of the federal government’s revenues, and for the next 50 years, they provided around half.
It wasn’t until Congress introduced income tax in 1913 that tariffs began to decline. During the Great Depression rates peaked at nearly 60 percent, but over recent years they have dropped to around 4 percent. Last year tariffs accounted for just 1.5 percent of the total US tax revenue.
During his announcement, President Trump warned that retaliatory actions by trading partners would trigger reprisals – but he also explained that if countries sought to remedy the trade imbalance, an adjustment could be considered: “Should any trading partner take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may further decrease the duties imposed under this order.”
And that’s what’s happened. With more than 75 countries approaching the administration to remedy their trade imbalances, the President has now announced a 90-day pause during which tariff rates have been reduced to a blanket 10 percent – except for those countries that retaliated.
Whether rates will stay at 10 percent in the long term, or go higher, remains to be seen.
The scale and speed of President Trump’s reforms is breathtaking.
He’s able to move at pace because he has control of the US Government. That window may close in two years’ time when Congress holds its mid-term elections for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and a third of the 100 seat six-year-term Senate.
With no guarantee that the Republicans will continue to hold a majority, the President knows there is no time to waste in pushing ahead with his reforms.
In comparison, the three-year term of New Zealand’s Parliament gives our Governments the opportunity to dither!
And that’s what the Coalition appears to be doing according to former ACT Leader Richard Prebble, who explained in a recent Herald article why he opposes ACT’s proposal to extend the term of Parliament from three years to four:
“Parkinson’s law, that work expands to fit the time available, is true for Government. Give politicians another year and they will take longer to do the same amount of work. The knowledge that the Government must account to the electorate in three years is a huge incentive to make decisions…
“In this year’s Budget, the media reports the Finance Minister will have a ‘bonfire of vanity projects’. Her Budget last year must have funded these vanity projects. The minister has ruled out abolishing any of New Zealand’s 32 departments, ministries and agencies. The way to permanently reduce spending is to abolish the agencies that are themselves vanity projects…
“The Prime Minister has sternly demanded local government stick to the basics. It is advice that he should also apply to central Government. A three-year term has failed to motivate the Coalition into making timely decisions that it knows are necessary. Having another year would just result in more procrastination.”
The law change enabling a four-year term of Parliament was part of ACT’s Coalition Agreement. Both National and New Zealand First have agreed to support the Bill to a Select Committee.
Submissions on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill close at 1pm on April 17 – full details can be seen HERE. Submissions on an associated Bill, the Referendums Framework Bill, also close on April 17 – see HERE.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is in charge of the Bill and told the House: “At this stage, no decisions have been made on whether this Bill will proceed beyond this… Future decisions will also need to be made by the Government as to whether the bill proceeds as introduced, or whether it should be amended… We want to hear what New Zealanders think during the select committee process.”
On this occasion the Government is clearly listening, so if you have strong views on extending the term of Parliament, you should send in a submission.
The Bill would allow a new Government to do a deal with opposition parties – within three months of an election – to extend the Parliamentary term from three years to four, in return for giving the Opposition effective control of the Select Committees.
But, as Richard Prebble says, this could be a recipe for mayhem: “In principle the bill is wrong. Politicians should not be able to make a deal with the Opposition to extend their time in power. In practice, having the Opposition chair select committees is a recipe for chaos. An unprincipled Opposition, protected from defamation, could turn the select committees into Star Chambers…”
There are many arguments against extending the Parliamentary term, but perhaps the strongest reason for not doing so is the thought of having to endure a government like the 2020 Ardern administration for four years instead of three. By imposing a cancerous agenda onto our country during their three years of unbridled power, they did incalculable damage. Imagine the carnage another year would have caused!
Since extending the term of Parliament represents a major constitutional change, if ACT’s Bill becomes law, it would need to be approved by a binding referendum of voters.
Should this be the case, there are two other crucial constitutional matters that New Zealanders should also be given the opportunity to vote on. These are whether the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16, and whether the Maori seats should be retained or abolished.
All three issues should be combined into a “Constitutional Referendum” and put to voters at the next election.
With Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all supporting the call to lower the voting age, it is crucial that New Zealand voters have the opportunity to dismiss this concept once and for all.
And with the Maori seats already causing an overhang in Parliament – as well as having a disproportionate influence – the Maori Party’s aggressive campaign to switch voters onto the Maori roll to increase the number of Maori Seats has become a critical concern for voters.
This outcome was predicted by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which warned that if MMP was introduced without the Maori seats being abolished, the resulting over-representation of Maori in Parliament, would have a discriminatory impact on other New Zealanders.
Their recommendation was for “no separate Maori constituency or list seats, no Maori roll, and no Maori option… All New Zealanders would vote in the same way.”
Given the increasing radicalisation of the Maori Seats within our Parliament, and the disruption that is now causing, New Zealanders deserve to be given the choice between apartheid or democracy.
A binding Constitutional Referendum asking the following three questions would give voters their chance to a say on matters central to our democracy and way of life:
1. Do you support a law change enabling a four-year term of Parliament?
2. Should the voting age be lowered from 18 years to 16 years?
3. Should the Maori seats be retained or abolished?
If you agree with the concept of this Constitutional Referendum, then please share it with others – and let your MPs know – as it is only through public pressure that change can occur.
Don’t forget all MP email addresses can be found here: https://www.nzcpr.com/have-your-say.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Do you support the concept of enabling the term of Parliament to be extended from three years to four years?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Hell NO. This current Coalition is dragging its National Anchor with the Captain asleep at the wheel and unable to read the room. | Noel |
| Yes 4 years is a more acceptable time for accountability. The 3 years term is too short to see new polices come to fruition. Yes for sure. | Pavithra |
| Sometimes 3 years is far too long. | Allan |
| 1. The voted government needs to move quickly not have an extra 12 months to dilly dally. 2. A voted government that is determined to destroy the country has an extra 12 months to put bad policy in place. | Heather |
| Those clown do enough damage in a week let alone four years | doug |
| Absolutely No, three years maybe not long enough for a ‘ good ‘ government which nz hasn’t had for decades and three years is definitely too long for a Bad government, looking at the appalling socialist disaster of the destructive ardern regime. | Flip |
| The likelihood of having a government that is all talk and no action puts me off a four term government | Barrie |
| 3 years is safer to protect against extreme policies | bruce |
| We have moved from one set of lying bastards to more of the same. What we have available to govern us at the moment does not deserve an extra year | Don |
| think what damage ardens govt did another year and she would have sold n z to the highest bidder then fled to harvid to learn how to speak maori properly so she could be queen | adrian |
| 3 years is two long for some Governments | Colin |
| Imagine if Ardern and co had had another year in power – the damage to our country would have been even worse. | Mary |
| Not before the calibre of the MP’s improves. Waiting an extra year to get rid of the last labour government would have been an eternity | David |
| If a government adopts policies that the people want, they will be re-elected and thereby have a 6 year term or longer. | Fred |
| High time. We must hope it is not too late. | mary |
| A bad government can do more damage in that additional year | Kerry |
| Critical reforms include ALL MPs must work in an electorate. All Lobbyists should be known to the voters. Action nogt theatre is the essential | Cliff |
| If they did their job properly and actually did what they campaigned on they would likely get more than 4 years | Richard |
| I would like the general vote for the country’s Parliament to be every 4yrs. However it’s too dangerous in these current times when an extra year could be enough to entrench unwanted political stupidity. There is just too much incompetence, immaturity, capitulation and uncertainty running through our society in these present times that make four year parliamentary terms an unsafe proposition for New Zealand. We probably need another three or four hundred years for a population of our demographics to reach a Switzerland type competency and maturity level to sort out a system of government that upholds the dignity and genius of humanity. So I have to say “NO”. | Garry. |
| No way. | Ronmac |
| A lot more maturity required by mp’s to get 4 years | Wynne |
| Three years of bad government is enough. | gale |
| yes if mmp is dumped but NO if it carries on, or if a referendum is held to each of the following. Get rid of mmp, then 4 years vote age, if voted for 16 then law breakers must be charged as a adult. hori seats,and the greens, if not voted out on a referendum then NO to a four year term. while we are at it if any polys do what ardern and her arse lickers did charge them with criminal damage not give them a bloody gong but a prison sentence. | Richard |
| We could end up with 8 years of less than desirable rule from a government that has reached it’s full level of incompetence. | DICK |
| No, No. A three year term allows us to stop the Government from doing too much damage. In four years they could totally wreck the country. | Paloma |
| No reduction in voting age, abolish maori seats. | Terry |
| Three requires too many general elections | Peter |
| only problem is it gives Labour, Greens more time to stuff it up. Just get rid of TPM and MMP must go. | Rod |
| NO..NO..NO WAY !! LET’S END Tweedledee, and dumb’s end, once and for all of them..none can be trusted, all of them, self-serving career crims…look at ADERNS LOT…. ALL STILL AT LARGE….IN HIDING, SOME OF THEM, WANT TO GET BACK. NO… NO … NO… THEY NEED TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT, FOR THE SPIKE IN THE ARM!!! STOP THEM! l | David |
| NO..NO..NO…JUST GET RID OF THE LOT..The T.P.M… racist Labour and Looney Green parties, Maori seats, MMP and ban all separatist and commie parties!, | David |
| To short a term to benefit any changes. | Dianne |
| The answers to your referendum questions are: 1.-No- to four- year term. 2. No-to 16 years voting.3. Maori seats abolish; along with haka dance ( cultural apartheid ) from public view as in rugby games. | Monica |
| I would rather stick a fork in my eye than put up with greens tpm labour for 4 years. 3 would be awful enough | Donna |
| I think 3 is about right | Jake |
| Another year under Ardern would have been disastrous for the NZ democracy. | Mark |
| We need the early term to enable us to get rid of the politicians if they are bad — as they are now that we have a gutless prime minister. | Alan |
| Agree with The Winds Change 100% | Glenn |
| Not with the current system too many idiots, greens and the bros causing chaos and no idea how the world works. JUST LOOK AT TRUMP, the same would happen in NZ with a different name. Sort the NZ system then look at a four year term. | Rod |
| No…because we have been burned before. Notably by Jacinda and Co. who did more than enough damage to our country during their time in Parliament. | caren |
| Definitely a three year term, especially with this latest crop of imbeciles. To get politicians that have only the best intentions for New Zealand, and to uphold all democratic process. Each and every candidate should have to swear allegiance to New Zealand’s sovereignty, and the rule of law, that being British Law. Each candidate is to be scrutinized by the Police, spy agency, internal affairs. If any of these candidates have any affiliation with Marxism, communism, hard left socialism, WEF, Who, UN, or any other organisation that will undermine our countries Democracy, and our freedoms. | steve |
| Don’t encourage them! | Rodney |
| The risks from the last governments’ policies and recent years of radical anti social individuals forming groups, to gain power, not in the general public interest, does not give any evidence for a 4 year term. | Maurice |
| As long as we do have separate Maori seats in Parliament. | Jacqueline |
| 4 years terms would destroy NZ. I do think if you earn wages, you should be eligible to vote. Maori seats are undemocratic. | paul |
| No, our politicians are untrust worthy. The PM killed a bill that would have potentially ended the mafia rort, promoted social cohesion, made us all equal under the law, secured property rights thus encouraging economic growth for every one. I hope all those MPs voted in by the public loose their seats next election. No moral courage, so why give them four years. | Sam |
| A shorter term encourages MPs to get on with business without prevarication. Lengthening the parliamentary term will serve no useful purpose other than to allow the incumbent party to thwart the efforts of the opposing parties and even the electorate from making amendments. Delaying parliamentary lawmaking through stalling procedures is not progressive thinking but affording personal vendettas to prevail. Parliamentary decisions are urgent matters after due diligence in the house and should be dealt with expeditiously. Allowing more time for a party to prevail with a majority should be tested at a general election as is currently the case. An extended parliamentary term will only benefit the incumbent party and may well be detrimental to the electorate. The effect of the present timeline is known to the electorate and any variation may dangerously disadvantage the electorate by denying the opportunity to change the country’s management when more financial prudence is required. | terrence |
| If the corrupt politicians want 4 years then we should have elections every 2 years, and if they perform after 2 years they can get another 2 years | Alan |
| I have just voted yes to 4 year terms but with some provisos. Looking at comments on this subject it seems a lot of people voted for 3 years so a bad government only gets 3 years to stuff the country up. In my opinion the problem is not the term length but the quality of the MPs in parliament. What if anyone wanting to stand for a party must show relevant qualifications to do the job. For starters applicants must be over say 40 years old which will give them some life experience. there will be other qualitys required but I am only planting a seed here. So now to who is eligible to vote. You cannot vote if you are unemployed,in prison or are not a ratepayer. Again just planting a seed. These principles should give some food for thought to people with common sense. One country one people. | Brian |
| Like Richard Prebble said who would have wanted another year of the Ardern government ..other than Maoris | Mike |
| God help NZ if 4 yrs | Michael |
| How lucky we are that the Adern government was able to be removed from power after three long years? Imagine if NZ had had to put up with them in power for another year. | John |
| Before Ardern’d government I would have said Yes but she showed everyone what a manic megalomaniac could destroy in just three years. And I would vote No to lowering the voting age and No to retaining Maori Seats | frank |
| too many radicals to change at this time…more important in fact URGENT is the abolition of Maori wards and seats in central and local govt. | Peter |
| We just have to think about the huge amount of damage that the Adern/Hipkins government did to the country. Do we want another year of that? In businesses, managers get a performance review every 12 months in general. Just think that the election is a three-yearly review of the management of the country. | Ken |
| With caution I say Yes: It is a two edged sword. It can be beneficial for a good coalition to be able to have another year to embed good quality policies or a bad Government to have more time to embed bad policies. If the marxist racists come into power next time due to the amorphous stupidity of voters we will have a hell of a job to recover from the damage these wreckers and haters will cause ( if we have a chance to recover at all). God protect New Zealand. | Michael |
| NO,,NO…I hear the Quote, used by victorious Rugby teams, to defeated teams…..’FOUR MORE YEARS’! Just imagine that…. if it were a bunch of tyrants, like ADERN AND DIPKINS, for the same…..! spare us the PAIN!! NO PLEASE NO!! | David |
| Just couldn’t stand it if the left wing won & we had to put up with them for 4 years. Rather put up with the 3 years as per now | Mike |
| Adern’s 3yr term was an example we won’t forget. Her divisive dominance divided the people, destroyed tourism and small business. Luxon is another example of poor leadership. Politicians spend more time travelling off-shore than getting things done at home. An extension of a year would change nothing. In Luxon’s case, one extra year would do irreparable damage. | Kathy |
| I look back on the Ardern period of Government and shudder. Another year of such rule is the last thing we should be voting for | Frank |
| I would like to see the voters being given the right to recall MP’s, as we have a number of hopeless ones in there at present. | Ray |
| HELL NO ! | Glyn J |
| A big NO. Just imagine the damage an extra year of the Adern / Hipkin government would have done if they had that extra year.OMG!!! It makes my horrified to think about it. If they got a four term for parliament we MUST be able to have a citizen iniated referendum to keep a rein on these stupid polices. Examples :Adern , Hipkins ,Luxon etc. We the people must have the final say. | Peter |
| I think the point that Dr Newman makes that if the previous Labour Government had a fourth year added to their term, it would have enabled them to bankrupt NZ. The risks are just too many. The present National Government has been something of a disappointment in their lack of decisive changes to the rubbish that Labour left lying around and I have always voted National.. The items that should have been completed by now include the abolition of the Maori seats, the final burial of the Treaty as it died years ago and the abolition of the Maori Wards along with non elected representatives on Local Bodies and equal rights for all Kiwis along with the sea bed and foreshore being returned to Crown Land. That would have made a good start. | CHRIS |
| Two years is enough to see if they are any good as it is… | James |
| Only if the destructive radical racist idiotss don’t govern against our democracy from the inside as they are currently trying to do. But we know this can not be gauranteed sadly..Racism and seperate agendas from within.. | Julie |
| But disestablish the Maori seats | Sonia |
| If the government of the day are crap you will be stuck with them for an extra year and if the are good they’ll get voted back in anyway after 3 years | Chris |
| do it now! | Paula |
| might be more productive | GERARDUS ANTONIUS |
| Subject to a similar mid term process applied in the US system, just to keep Parliamentarians awake. | Linton |
| If the elected government is making the progress the people voted for in the three year term then they will re-elected. If not they will be deservedly booted out. Three years is a long enough time frame to prove your worth. | Mark |
| However I am a supporter of the first term of a government being four years, thereafter three years should previl. | Sylvia |
| 3 years is too long if we have a destructive outfit like the Ardern government was. Incoming Governments need to be prepared and to act quickly and decisively.eg Trump! | John |
| Absolute nonsence | Pamela |
| I think Parkinsons law is applicable & imagine the damage a coalition of Labour & the maori party would do. | Philip |
| With the right government in place (right wing) it gives them time to flush out the crap , and fix our country that has been hijjacked | Phil |
| If a government cant organise themselves faster as Trump did in allotting portfolios and objectives before they took over power then they are responsible for running out of time in a three year tenancy. Political parties need to upgrade their methods. | Rex |
| If a government cant organise themselves faster as Trump did in allotting portfolios and objectives before they took over power then they are responsible for running out of time in a three year tenancy. Political parties need to upgrade their methods. | Rex |
| Definitely | Mike |
| I would support a four year term even with Richards reservations. However, it must be accompanied by a right of recall as in some of the US States so that if the governing party loses overall support of the people they can be dumped. The voting age should not be lowered to help the Greens and the Maori roll needs to be gone. One people and one form of representation | Cookie |
| I agree with Prebble’s concern re time wasting by politicians. | fred |
| Definitely not. The risk of another Arden type government or worse is very real. | NOEL |
| Can’t trust any of our elected representatives to represent our best interests, so even 3 years can be too long. | Fiona |
| The voters need tight control on the plonkers parties are putting up on the list side. | Richard |
| NO. Imagine the carnage if Liebour radical greens and maori party country takeover had one more year. We would be aoateroa, maori language compusory and broke. Maori radicals and evil tribes would steal any money left. Luxon wont have a country to run if he does not stop maori radicalisation of EVERYTHING In NZ. He does not want equal rights and is still pandering to maori radicals and tribe leaders. SHAME ON YOU. We need a new leader, DAVID, WHINSTON OR SHANE should be PM. | Kevan |
| Happy with 3 Years | Colleen |
| We’re getting poor governments in three year terms now, why give them another year?? Governments need to be more accountable. The Treaty Bill fiasco shows that. Why would a politician reject a referendum which gives the people’s opinion-after all the people elect the politicians and parties? I hope David Seymour and ACT stay resolute. The poor performances suggest a 2 year term would mean more accountability; after all politicians listen for a while before elections. | Tony |
| With the deep unrest and mistrust of prevailing parties four years is too long for bad governance to prevail. | Jan |
| only if you have a centre right govt in place.Then it could be extended to 9yr terms | nev kath |
| This would surely help stabilise decision making & avoid switching on & off decisions made by opposing political directions | Peter |
| necessary | David |
| Keep it at 3 years if they do a good job they can get at least 2 terms. With the current labour party a 4vyear term would be disastrous. | Nigel |
| I used to be a supporter of a four-year term, then along came Ardern and I changed my mind. | Michael |
| Cost savings | Mark |
| An extra year of a bad government could damage the country. Imagine if the Ardern/Hipkins government had had an extra year. | Cathy |
| If the Government in power is doing a good job running NZ, then re-election is straight forward after three years with no disruption. If an elected Government is wrecking the country, then three years enables the voters to throw them out. | alan |
| Richard Prebble is correct. Governments will dither if we go to 4 years. | Geoffrey |
| Adern proved that politicians cannot be trusted | Ihaia |
| MMP has failed. More application and vetting of new law needs an independent Upper House. A higher standard of lawmaking would speed up the function of government. | Frederick |
| Too long when a bad govt is in power. Should have a clause that if a govt goes in a dirrection trhat is different to pre election promises they should be stood down and a new election held | judith |
| After the Ardern debacle NEVER! | Roger |
| Imagine if Ardern and Labour had had another year. If a government is good they%u2019ll get voted back in. | Steve |
| National’s approach to equal rights vs Treaty obligations has been incremental. It hasn’t worked – either socially or economically. The 3 year term fascillitates directional change. Longer terms would encourage dithering. | Necia |
| 4 is more productive BUT if Labour gets in next term and promotes maori takeover then 3 is too many!! | David |
| Very few countries retain a short 3 year term, having realised that it leaves just 1 year to get anything done – Yr1 being filled with getting traction, corralling the new MPs and building a cohesive cabinet, and Yr3 is devoted to winning the next election. Leaving just Yr2 for affirmative, significant and visionary action. I do think the longer term might well be coupled with an easier path to dissolving a government that the majority is dissatisfied with . | Richard |
| It is an outrageous proposition. | Geoff |
| Needed to be sorted long ago. However I wouldn’t want the previous government to be there that long. I would support a first term 3 years and if voted back in a 4 year term, same format if voted in after that. | Owen |
| No way with us having to pay big salaries to so many inept racists, activists, etc from the Labour Maori party, the Green Maori activist party and the Te Pati activist party who are all suppose to be reprepresenting us. | Judy |
| Definitely NO. the extension will only add to the disconnect between parliament & voter’s rights. | Giles |
| Three years is too short which is why so many countries have a four or five year term | Janie |
| they need more time to do things | adrian |
| I just can’t trust our politicians sufficiently to give them an extra year without answering to voters | Frank |
| A bad government like Arden’s reign can do a lot of damage to a country extending that would be unthinkable. Governments would procastinate longer as they would have more time. Governments are voted for the promises that they make. It’s very common in NZ that the parties make promises they have no intention of fulfilling. We need to be able to remove these governments as soon as possible. 3 years is already too long to put up with bad policy makers. | Maria |
| No way. The fools in parliament do enough damage and fool around enough in three years. I trust no government enough to have four years at the helm. The threat of looming elections keeps them somewhat in line at least for the final year of their term. | John |
| Presently think that 3 years is enough, but may vote for a 4-year term if enough security in place to stop political madness! | Sylvia |
| I hate to think what Labour would have done with a fourth year in Govt. | Rod |
| Maybe 3.5 years, as half a year gets wasted with election build up. | Kim |
| Too many broken promises by both major parties to allow them to hang round too long. Dithering – that’s a grand description of of the Blues and the Reds. | Rob |
| What we have as a parliament is a disgrace and no way should we allow these people exrtra time to continue this charade. | Andrew |
| If you have a bad government, having an extra year means another year of that bad government. | Kent |
| I do not agree with either the longer term or the notion of a cosy arrangement between government and opposition. | Peter |
| NO AND NO AGAIN… We the people, have had enough CORRUPTION! Time for the SELF SERVING CRIMS.. TO EXIT, AND GO POUND SAND….. ALL OF THEM CAN’T BE TRUSTED… JUST EXIT, AND GO! THANKS BUT NO THANKS.!!! | David |
| 3 YEARS IS TO SHORT | Noel |
| If the wrong people get in the carnage would be terrible just imagine if Labour had 3 years | Peter |
| Look at the Ardern fiasco, and stay with three years. | Donald |
| It seems that in our current system, first year is spent clearing away previous govt’s mistakes/incompetence:second year the new govt tries to get some work done: third year spent on run-up to the next election. | Dennis |
| Absolutely YES! Most countries have a four year term so that the ruling party get time to enact good legislation. | Derek |
| 4 years of the previous Labour government would have left us absolutely destitute instead of just broke. | Mark |
| The current 3 yr term works so why change it. | John |
| and how do they justify continuing on with departments that are simply woke virtue signalling? The Maori seats are simple racist apartheid. Get rid of them. | ken |
| We have just been saved from a tribal takeover by the fact that we have only a three year term. Had it become 4 we might have gone beyond returning. It is hard enough now. | perce |
| 4 YRS IS TO LONG. tHEY ALL MAKE A MESS OF OUR COUNTRY THEN WE have to start it all over again so 3 yrs is sometimes to long. I dont like any of our govt at the momment. | Barbara |
| Three years are more than enough to assess whether you like what the particular government is doing or not | AndyE |
| Extending the Parliament. in NZ,will not solve the huge TSUNAMI TIDAL WAVE , that is headed towards our country…. a whole WORLD OF SH….T COMING, but no-one is aware that it is going to hit….. our own fault…. because we have let NZ be taken over by sell-out TYRANTS….. now it’s too late! NEED TO START PRAYING!!! | David |
| The govt can bugger the country in3 years Think what they could do in 4 | Arthur |
| As already said a 4th year of Aden’s diabolical Labour government would have been even more crippling for New Zealand. 4 years, too big a risk. | Angela |
| The very thought of the Labour Ardern Hipkins government being upon us for an extra year would have just about cause a revolution in this country. | Janet |
| Under no circumstances. If they don’t perform as they are doing now imagine putting up with them for a further year | Rob |
| Wry bad idea. | Chris |
| 4 years to create further mistakes, yeah nah However, if all politicians sign an employment contract that says if they muck up, lie or do criminal things, then we can sack them | Gary |
| I want to get rid of ad govt as soon as possible | Morrie |
| Politicians are not fovored people often not sticking to their election campaign ‘promises’ so the option to replace them needs to be kept open! | Stuart |
| Enough damage occurs during a 3-year period already. A 4 year term will just allow the incumbents to dither and procrastinate longer. Leave things as they are! | Trevor |
| Successive governments have shown utter disregard for the future of New Zealand and citizens whose cultures and beliefs are non maori. I do not trust any political parties any more and would never want them to have more time to practise their evil. At the moment I would rank Act as most likely to win my trust and I suggest Luxon not clench until he checks where his head is. Do not extend the parliamentary term. There is nothing about that bill I like. Nothing. | Peter |
| Definitely NOT. There is noupper house to balance a lowerhouse running amuck. Just imaging Jacinta for 4 years !!!!!!!!!!!! | Vaughan |
| but it is long past time for the Maori seats to be abolished. | Edith |
| three years is eniough time to impliment change | Anthony |
| Three years is more than enough time for a Government to enact their policies.. | Dennis |
| And No to the age being lowered. Yes. Get rid of the Maori seats. | Elizabeth |
| I would hope that they actually knuckle down and get more done. If they don’t have to campaign to much it should free up time…..i could be wrong | Cath |
| As clearly noted in the above comments we NZers do not want to endure an additional year of dictatorship. Just imagine if there were a Maori lead Govt the serious damage that would do to NZ | Noel |
| “SHE” has coursed me to worry ! | John |
| Imagine if Adern had another year??? | Steve |
| 3 years is enough, imagine if another Arden got into power again. 3 years was enough to ruin New Zealand. | William |
| Three years is to short a period to implement policy given the significant procedural constraints faced by new governments | John |
| I certainly would not like to have to go through the pain and suffering the Jacinda Ardern led government put us through. So three years and nor four. This government is procrastinating enough | Rod |
| Only if it is initiated after National 3 Yr term is completed. | John |
| If government is performing then they’ll win a consecutive term. if underperforming an extra year of woe (4th year) is destructive | Richard |
| No, No, No,No, No. Look at the damage 9 years of Labour has done to the foundational democratic values of this country. Apart from the huge deficit they have left this Nation in. Get rid of mmp which was passed on a very small margin and now gives us 123 MPS in parliament. We had 80. Many have no electorate that they are responsible for. How ridiculous!! The greens and the Maori party have developed into protest parties who want to change the whole foundational structure, laws, social values of our beautifull Nation. Labour are very happy to coallese with them to get power no matter how radical their policies are. Wake up NZ. You were fooled once with mmp. Don’t be fooled again!!! Christopher Luxon, how about you stand up for ther values you expounded before the election instead of trying to please all of the people, all of ther time. | Dene |
| Although procrastination is a risk I think a longer term will result in better quality legislation. | Terry |
| Absolutely NOT! The corruption in government is so bad the damage done in 3yrs is bad enough 4yrs and that would be the END of New Zealand as we know it! It’s already changed beyond recognition by woke politicians and bureaucrats! Imagine 4yrs of labour with Ardern or Hipkins in charge! We’d be a fascist state in 4yrs easy! NO WAY! | peter |
| Absolutely not. | john |
| Three years of bad government is better than four years of bad government | Tony |
| Four years NO. Keep a heavy chain around their neck to remind them who they work for. | Ray |
| a four year term will be an incentive for the elected Representatives to smarten up their acts. | Karen |
| Like Key, Luxon is ensuring that nothing, or at most, very little, changes when either of the two Major Parties replace the other after the misguided voters think they are changing the government. So a four year term would make no difference unless the minor parties become dominant. The suggestion that the opposition could control committees is proof enough that we are dealing with Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum. Will the voters ever wake up ? Probably not. | A.G.R. |
| not while Parliament is made up in the way it currently is. | Lionel |
| I believe bad governments should be voted out as soon as possible. | Paul |
| This question is not as important as the other two; ie, ensuring only adults are allowed to vote, and abolishing maori seats from Parliament, | TOBY |
| however I would like to see the ability to recall any politician if their actions in power are different to the agenda they laid out as part of the elections, basically if an MP lied to get into power, we the public have a way to get them out before the 4 years is up. | john |
| 3 years is probably about right but it seems to go very fast! | Kelly |
| No – having read Richard Prebble’s arguments against a four year term, I cannot help but agree with him. For instance, just imagine the level of carnage that could have been inflicted upon the nation if Jacinda and her administration would have had an extra year in office – this is the stuff of nightmares! | Scott. |
| But don’t want the voting age reduced to 16 | david |
| NO! Look at how much damage Labour/Greens/Te Pati Maori did in their first 3 years. Then made it all the worse in their next! God forbid! at least after 3 years, we can literally kick them to touch. | Heather |
| Imagine if Labour got in and had a 4 year term what a disaster. | Liz |
| Look at the damage Ardern could do in 3 years. We cannot let any of them have 4 on the trot or they could cause even more significant economic and social damage without being checked. | Mike |
| Absolutely not. Politicians have shown irrefutably that they can’t be trusted and the last thing we need is for the arrogant (in too many cases) no-hopers to rule over us for an extra year. | Helen |
| Depends. On one hand it is more time in actually getting things done. But if you get the wrong Government in power it can be disastrous. | Tony |
| If the party in power cant implement changes in 3 years they will never get there in 4 years. Take a tip from Trump and implement changes promised now . | bruce |
| Three years of making bad judgements on matters is long enough. | Christina |
| NOT likely mate | Peter |
| Our Adern experience makes that impossible to contemplate | tony |
| No thanks Labour did the unbelievable damage to this Country in 6yrs imagine if they had 8yrs .[Zimbabwe] !!! | Michael Andrew |
| Would work well if the time frame gets the job done – down side if it’s a party in that was not democratically voted in or went back on matters could spell disaster. | Angela |
| Should a governing party do right be the majority of voters they would be confident of retaining power and hence long term goal achievement should be achievable. Having to put up with the weak PM leaders of late for an extra year is not appealing. | Hugh |
| Leave Term at Three As will be more trouble | leo |
| Just look at the insidious damage that labour has caused in 3 years. If they hadhad an additional year we would have had a complete disaster. | Ronmac |
| Increasing the term would not necessarily lead to better or more productive government. If, as with the Ardern era, how much more damage to our society could she or the Labour government have done in another year? I shudder to think. Parliamentarians are not generally held in the highest regard – would a 4th year change this? Not likely! | Laurence |
| We cannot trust the bastards no way they should have another year in which to stuff the country up | Jeffrey |
| In principal I think this would be a good idea, however I would like to see processes in place that would result in there being a relook at the situation every two years to just make sure that the present Government is on track. This would be particularly important if one party one the election with a very large margin. I liken this to the fact that American system has an election of sorts every two years, while I realise our system is not as complex as theirs there must be some way to allow voters to exercise a level of control. | Sue |
| 3 years of Ardern and 3 years of Luxon, both enable disastrous results for the country. Imagine the damage they’d do in 4 years!!! | Brtyan |
| I have submitted to that effect. | pdm |
| The thought hat we would get another Labour /Green /Te Pati Maori govt for 4 years is tooooo much to contemplate. Also must avoid procrastination | Stan |
| Reduce it to two years (and maybe do like USA and have one third re-elected every two years) | Howard |
| a four year term provides for less volatility | Gerhard |
| Your article helps me to see this is not a good idea. | Andrew |
| If a bad government was in power, an extra year could do a great deal of damage to the country. Imagine an extra year of the Ardern government! | Colin |
| And get rid of Maori seats | Dave |
| The possibility of a four-year term of Labour again is too frightening | Ross |
| Definitely NO. Three years is sufficient time to make the changes a government was voted in on. Also, the experience with the Jacinda government certainly supports NOT extending the term. Under her reign, the racial tensions exploded and it is time to eliminate the Maori seats. | Keith |
| What about changing the electoral system Mmp has not been satisfactory National has become a wet party that people have to vote for reluctantly | Owen |
| Imagine if labour n the radical left being in for longer their 6 year term! It would be 8 years of hell, destruction and closer to Maori takeover. I will leave this beautiful country if the left get in the next election. | Deb |
| With the nightmare experience of the recent Ardern government fresh in our minds and growing radicalisation in our political parties, getting it wrong at the polls and giving the pollys an extra year would be excrutiating, not to say potentially very destructive. | Geoff |
| as you have to wait another year to get rid of them, especially Luxon. As I want to get an ACT Nat NZ 1st govt but with the two minor parties to have combined more seats and split of the vote | Mark |
| No. 3 years of mayhem is already too long;; 4 years might be disastrous | Peter |
| Three years is not enough time for any government to implement any changes voted on by the public | Kevin |
| Most certainly not at this time. perhaps well into the future it could be revisited but if actioned now, Maori activists would have a ball! | Fred |
| No. If the elected government cannot carry out the required reforms in 3 years then they are not deserving of further time to do so. If they do perform, only then do they deserve being re-elected for a further 3 years. | Ronnie |
| While we’re at it we should start the debate to re-select the version of Proportional Representation we use. Arguably New Zealand has the worst. | Toby |
| They can already do enough damage in 3 years let alone 4 years. It allows them to either with out making the hard decisions for even longer. No, let’s stick to 3 years. I don’t believe there will ever be a strong leader like Trump in this weak country ever. | Paul |
| This gives the incoming government time to embed policies especially if having to correct the past governments poor policy or economic policies | John |
| 3 years is long enough thank you | Peter |
| keep the term short to ensure accountability | Geoff |
| A good leader is always going to get a second term. Giving some of our current parliamentarians four years would see me migrating to Australia | Keith |
| stupidity is never compulsory , a two year term is more than enough based on the poor quality of the usual bunch of gold diggers on offer to the masses. | fred |
| For starters, trumps collapse of wallstreet is just another grab by rich, sell their shares before collapse and buy up large when shares are worth less, same as convid. As far as voting, it’s a dead hotse. Governments have never had less involvement in running countries than they do now. The TPPA adern WASN’T going to sign put paid to that. As for the income tax incurred in 1913, was that when the joos created thye FED? | larry |
| 4 years might be ok if a good Government is in power but it would be a DISASTER with a poor Government in power. A 3-year Government doing a good job will likely be re-elected ,effectively giving them them at least 6 years in power . Conversely a poor performing Government can be axed after just 3 years. | Hugh |
| Three years of bad government is bad enough. If there is a good government, then they can be re-elected after 3 years. | Alan |
| Can you just imagine the extra damage Ardern and co would have inflicted on NZers in four years. 26 months of her rule was 26 months too many | Chris |
| Three years is long enough for any political party to set their goals and objectives. If they have done a good job governing during their term, then the NZ voting public will vote them back into power again. We saw what happened with Ardern’s Liebour Coalition parties’ tenure in power, totally destroyed democracy and caused racial division in Nw Zealand. | Wayne |
| As long as the method to get rid of them should another Ardern turn up is made a whole bunch easier. | steve |
| I support a referendum on this, but, that said, I would then vote to retain the current 3 year term. | Rod |
| All parties have proven that none can be trusted, even with a three year term. | Rod |
| Not until the Treaty is finally dumped and “co-governance” rejected for the fallacy that it is. This racial division is the number one issue facing democrasy in NZ. Climate propaganda is a close second debilitating the economy and any future development. Dump them both first!! | Don |
| It is time this happens. | Ann |
| Definately not. Imagine where we would be today if the ardern govt with the radical maori and green parties had another year. NZ WOULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY DESTROYED Stick with 3 years thank you. | Allan |
| Absolutely not. Three years can seem like an eternity when the country has to put up with the quality of governance we have experienced in recent history. We need annual employment reviews to keep them honest to their promises made at election time. Otherwise a warning then down the road. This is what JOE BLOGS has to perform to. | Gary |
| Not with the current LOT of MP’s. Please stick to 3 yeare and remove LIST MP’s | Carl |
| 4 years of labour would be the end of NZ | vicki |
| three years is too short to enable ministers to get up to speed with thier portfolio, then endeavour to improve and then prep for the next election | Philip |
| The idea that year 1 is settling in, year 2 is sorting policy and year 3 is getting ready to fight for a second term is rubbish.Sort ort what to do in last year of opposition so ready to go on day 1 if elected. If good enough a second term will follow. | Peter |
| Whuck no | Chris |
| We cannot risk 4 years, as the labour Gov regularly unwisely spends the tax money, leaving National to balance the books – Thats my ’30 elections’ experience. Both NZ and the USA could not have survived another year of socialism with the values practiced. | Maurice |
| The argument that the recent Labour government would have lasted another year is sufficiently powerful to determine my answer to be NO. | Peter |
| Any party has plenty of time to plan their actions should they be elected into government; stick with a three year term I say. | Barry |
| Three years is long enough for the pollies to cause chaos. | Grant |
| Havent been able to trust a government for far too long. They need regular changing jst to protect us! | Andy |
| If a government cannot be effective within three years and prove to the public that it is performing well enough to be re-elected then there is little point of having an additional 12 months to further increase voter dissatisfaction. Performance is everything, a a government is elected a manifesto of what it has promised it will do (introduce, reform, repeal, etc). It has a plan ready to commence from day one in office (supposedly) and have 36 months to enact that plan. Failure to do so leaves them exposed to loss of support for their ideas. Also, as you mentioned, the immense damage that could be caused by a rogue government, one that has an agenda it did not make public through the election campaign, one that starts well but gets subverted by more radical internal factions or one that is simply found to be incompetent and its ministers inept. Yes, a further 12 months of the Ardern government, where Ardern herself perhaps stayed on for longer, would have likely sunk us, at least economically if not socially. Likewise, the current National lead coalition has not proven to be worthy of an automatic extentionof its term and many of its voters appear to be very disappointed with the Prime minister and his National ministers. The two minor parties in the coalition look likely to have increased support, although there is the possibility NZ may revert to the Left next election. Regardless, 3 years is certainly long enough for a government to prove itselef and for the public to decide if it has done so, well enough for re-election or rejection at the polls. | Mark |
| Certainly a binding referendum must be held, but also included should be the questions 1). Should we consign the Treaty to history and move forward as one country, one people? and 2). Should we raise the voting age to 20 or 21, should we lower it to 16, or keep it at 18? and 3) Should we remove all race-based funding (including trusts? and 4) Should all tribes be private companies with tribal members all holding shares and such companies subject to IRD audits and payment of taxes like every other company? and 5) Should English be the official language for New Zealand? and 6) Should New Zealand be the only official name for this country (anyone speaking maori can use Aotearoa, just as France calls it Nouvelle Zelande, in Spanish it is Nueva Zelanda and so on. The Icelandic one is a beauty!). | Gerard |
| A shorter time span is an incentive to get things done. 4 years of the Ardern/ Hipkins or similarly destructive govt is why we should not lengthen the current term. | Stephen |
| Based on our Current ‘Mixture’ of Politicians three Years is more than enough endure the Garbbage that goes on at Present. Get the Calibre of Donald Trumo, only then would four Years be fesible. | Geoff |
| Why not!! | Colin |
| The whole system is wrong – undemocratic. God knows how we can set up a system that actually does function democratically. For a start Parties would have to go so that we could vote for a person to represent each constituency, and no special Maori votes. That would be a start in the right direction. | Leonie |
| I support a 4 year term but only if, when Labour ,Greens, and TPM are in power they only get 1 year, that will be all the time they need to ruin New Zealand. | Lyn |
| Without a written constitution, too much damage can be done in four years. We saw what Jacinda did in six years- destroyed our economy. With more and more foreign governance, our politicians become puppets and anything goes towards total control. Resist, rebel and push back. | Donald |
| 4 years of bad government would be a disaster. If a goverment is doing well they will be reelected after 3 years. | Gordon |
| MPs are there to serve the Country not the other way around. Still fresh on Kiwis mind what happened under six years of Labour. Time to revisit MMP system too many MPS in Parliament not Democratically Elected | Frank |
| NO! | Robert |
| 4 years gives more time to achieve policies | Andrew |
| Three is better, we then have a choice of supporting the status quo or vote for change. | Murray |
| Get rid of the Maori seats | Colin |
| makes good Sence, Only problem would be if the big spenders on Social Welfare are in, Then oue Dedt would Increase Rapidally. | Richard |
| There’s not a party worth keeping in for that term. | steven |
| It takes too long now for Parliament to make a decision. An additional year would only add to the problem. | Ian |
| Simply because too many voters think only of their personal position and not the overall position of the country and how NZ has a budget that must be used to support the best overall benefit for every New Zealander in all areas, especially Health, Education, Housing. NZ budget is not a bottomless pit, loans must be repaid by future generations and the focus in these times must be new to have not like to have. | Rita |
| But before embarking on a 4 year term the weak NZ laws need to be strenghened to deal with seperatism and apartheid. | Henk |
| 3 yrs – if they are good we can vote them in again 4 yes – if they are bad, they could do incalculable damage in that time | Gail |
| Far too damaging if an absolute majority wins an election. We have little enough democracy already. | Roger |
| Just too dangerous in the current situation. | MARY |
| Gives the stupid people in parliament more time to stuff things up more | mike |
| Do the work required within the time frame | gaye |
| Three is enough | Jil. |
| I agree with your article | Doris |
| Subject to good controls, provided that 1. Question. Should voting age be lowered from 18 to 16 years? 2. Should Maori seats be retained or abolished? | Don |
| No, if there is a corrupt government, then waiting another year to get rid of it could do more damage. | Laura |
| If the Green party, Te Pati Maori and Labour were in power for four years, the country would most likely capitulate socially and economically. Under the last Labour Govt NZ lost many small businesses due to the quite unnecesarry lockdowns forced on us by the powers that be. Information today reveals it was a huge over reach by the Adern led administation. You can’t trust Hipkin’s and Company not to repeat such a henous outcome should matters arise with similar intent. Perish the though of four years with that crowd at the helm. | John |
| Provided all three items are in the referendum. | Andrew |
| Only when we see that we are getting good, honest, true representation government, should it be extended to 4 year terms. | John |
| Hell NO – bad enough now & yes procrastination would be an even bigger problem – get rid of them all I say, we don’t need them – let the REAL People govern | Jill |
| I support the concept but without the ability to negotiate with the Opposition. NZ ers must decide, not politicians. | Marilyn |
| Not without some safeguards such as ‘recall’ ability. Four years has been rejected at least twice and rightly so.. | Roger |
| I agree with Richard Prebble article. | Martyn |
| More time to mess things up. | Lee |
| Considerable harm can be done in NZ in 3 years by politicians. A 4 year term would give politicians unbridled power that would be difficult nigh I,possible to rectify. | Virginia |
| Four years under Ardern would have been the nail in the coffin | Bryan |
| Too much time for too much possible damage. Things not being achieved in resonable time ie procrastnation | Heather |
| Swings between one government ideology and another will be stronger and more difficult and destructive to correct | Brian |
| Agree with Richard Prebbles comments | John |
| Especially after the adern debacle | sandra |
| Govts would procrastinate on decisions and we don’t need an Adern type Govt in for four years. She caused enough mayhem in 3 years. The voting age should stay the same. | Chris |
| Definitely not under the current MMP system where NZ’s political system has been hijacked by radical activists. Only unless the current voting system was changed back to first past the post & the number of MPs reduced significantly. | Greg |
| 3 years is still far too long. A recall mechanism could be an option though… | richard |
| Like most if not all Ardern’s decisions,this one is one of the more stupid she put us in. The cost to us is ridiculous and Luxon should call it for what it is,a con job.I doubt he has the guts to pull us out. | Peter |
| Yiou’re right! They do enough damage in three years! | Michael |
| Definitely not.Prebble is right . Pressure to achieve results is vital. | Bernie |
| The government can do enough damage in three years. | Gavin |
| 3 years is plenty without voter approval. | Gerry |
| not sure | anthony |
| It will cause the end of democracy if it is extended | Dominique Greenslade |
| It should be cut to 2 years and the 3 months before an election should be cut to 6 weeks with a limit of 4 weeks to form a government other wise there is another election in 4 weeks. Cut the dithering. | Martin |
| Four years will provide the time for our democracy to be governed more efficiently and economically | Tony |
| 3 years of a bad government is too much | Wayne |
| No, it must stay at 3 years. Get a disastrous government like we currently have with National betraying their voters, or the previous two Labour/Labour-led governments, and they can do a hell of a lot more damage to our democracy and country with an additional year in office. NO! | Colin |
| Too many stupid egos in the House | Gill |
| Imagine the further damage Labour would have done with another term. More of them, the racist Maori Party and the loony Greens. No Thanks. If the elected government does a good job – they’ll be re-elected. If they don’t – they won’t. | Christine |
| No way ! | Alan |
| The focus is on the wrong area – we need another referendum on a choice between MMP & FFP. I’m sure the antics of TPM & the Greens will be enough to persuade voters that MMP is a bad idea and constrains governments from implementing their manifestos. What we have is a rabble on the left and an insipid centre -right government full of compromise | Peter |
| I’m not sure, the elections seem to come around very fast! | June |
| As long as it is a good Govt and not the left leaning wreckers | Colin |
| I am of the opinion that one more year is essential to see the ruling party implement and see the fruits of new laws brought about by them. In the same way as we only were able to see the devastating impact of the Jacinda Government in the second term. After 4 years voters have a clear indication of the growth and progress from the current government and can make more informed choices in the next election. | Pavithra |
| Hell no!!! | Sheena |
| If a goverment is doing a good job they will win another term , 3 years is long enough to get good policies on track , 4 years means the country would suffer devestating damage if we got another adern or hipkims. | Phil |
| It is high time to stop the national/Labour ping pong, both are now totally corrupt | chris |
| thet want another year to stuff around? instead of getting things done? | Chris |
| No. What we really need is the ability to trigger a recall like they have in some parts of the world, whereby if sufficient citizens are of the view that the government needs to be removed, then a Recall election/referendum can be initiated to remove said government before they do too much damage. | Greg |
| It depends on what government is in power. | Terry |
| Continuity is important | Ian |
| Time to get rid of the Maori sears. Disproportionate numbers of them in our parliament. | Heather |
| Four year term is consistent and should be adopted. | Norman |
| Gives the Government more time to do meaningful stuff | Graham |
| Providing the local govt cycle changes to 4 years with lg elections held at the 2 year break. In addition, a recall provision is implemented that allows the community to legally sack an appointment. | Raymond |
| When we get shit governments in power like we get I want them gone, sooner the better. Should we get a great strong government in power they will gain re-election no worries | John |
| What universe is Simon on I wonder? | Judith |
| As long as act are in power. | John |
| Not enough to support any new policies at present | Bryan |
| Enough damage/inaction is created in the current term so an extension would exacerbate and take longer to fix. | Robyn |
| If well organised in advance there is no reason why new policies can’t be implemented within three years. And a bad Govt can do too much damage if given an extra year. | Vic Allen |
| At this stage, with the dire state of some political parties in NZ – The Greens and Te Pati Maori in particular – who openly promote a separatist racist agenda, I would not support extending to 4 years. | Derek |
| They already make enough mistakes and poor judgements in 3 years. Imagine the damage they could o in 4. | Doug |
| 3 years is way too short. | Leah |
| One more year of Ardern than we had to endure would have sent me to the funny farm. | Doug |
| Any term is to long to an unaccountable corporation masquerading as representatives of the people. | neil |
| No , we don’t need our politcians to have an xtra year in parliament, but we need a much better organised government, an upper house, change to preferential voting system, and a meritocracy system for experience for M.P’s that will hold a seat, and end M.M.P, which has not worked. | David |
| No way. Imagine if Adern had 4 years, the country would be banrupted by election time. Also the problem of a party not revealing their true agenda. Definite no no. | Terry |
| Absolutely NOT. After the damage Jacinda Ardern did to New Zealand I would never trust any government for FOUR years. | David |
| We do not need a longer term of Parliament. What we need it a government better organised to move more quickly with their reforms. And if they do a good job they will almost certainly be re-elected. | Murray |
| No – a four year term would make politicians even more arrogant than they already are. | Pete |
| ACT’s Bill is stupid. Having parties doing deals to stay in power for longer is dangerous. And giving opposition parties the power over select committees is a recipe for disaster. We need to stick to 3 year terms. | Hilary |
| Trump’s tariffs make sense to me. Switching the incentives from taxing income to taxing imports is a great thing if it enables zero tax for most Americans. Imagine the incentive that would create for entrepreneurialism and hard work. The US would boom! | Simon |