Infrastructure New Zealand and Local Government New
Zealand are urging the Government to address electoral terms
at all levels of government by putting a clear and unified
question to the public – should New Zealand move both
central and local government to fixed four-year electoral
terms?
“Infrastructure New Zealand
supports the shift to a four-year parliamentary term, but it
must be accompanied by the same shift for local
government,” says Infrastructure New Zealand Chief
Executive Nick Leggett. “This is critical if we want
alignment between the two tiers of government, and them to
operate and collaborate
effectively.”
“We believe there’s a
strong case for alignment of council and parliamentary
terms, and for national and local elections to be evenly
spaced with elections biennially,” says LGNZ President Sam
Broughton.
The current draft of the Term of Parliament
(Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill
overcomplicates the debate over a four-year term by
introducing conditions that allow governments to choose
between three- and four-year terms depending on how select
committee membership is allocated.
“Four-year terms
for both central and local government would significantly
benefit infrastructure by providing government with
additional time for considered policy development and
project delivery,” Leggett says. “It would also give
greater certainty to the infrastructure sector and
strengthen private investor confidence.”
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“Last
month the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group released its
draft position paper, which recommended that both local and
central government move to four-year electoral terms –
with any upcoming poll covering both,” Broughton says.
“A four-year term will support the country to be more
efficient with infrastructure planning and delivery,
basically doubling the number of effective governance years
between elections.”
“The report also recommended
that any move to four-year terms should include some form of
enhanced accountability, as the key accountability measure
of elections will apply less frequently.”
“While
Infrastructure New Zealand supports greater scrutiny of
government decision-making, having this determined at every
election would create unnecessary uncertainty,” Leggett
says. The Bill should simply be amended to provide for the
proposed new select committee arrangements if the referendum
proposal is accepted.”
“What’s needed is
clarity.”
“We should ask New
Zealanders one simple question at the referendum – do they
support moving both central and local government to
four-year terms, with elections held two years apart? That
approach gives each level of government the focus it needs,
reduces administrative strain, and ensures important local
issues are not drowned out by national
campaigns.”
“This Bill is a great
opportunity to improve our system of government across all
levels. Let’s make sure we get it right and give the
public a say on a simple and enduring
solution.”
