Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

3 Comments

  1. With all due respect for the likes of Jonathan Boston and others (often with vested interests), I can’t agree with Henry Cooke more:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300121309/election-2020-fouryear-political-terms-are-a-terrible-idea

    The time to think about a 4 year term is AFTER
    – politicians cease passing legislation that breaches Te Tiriti and BORA (sometimes based on shit advice)
    – when they find ways of properly resourcing and protecting the Ombudsman’s Office
    – there is respect for the OIA with consequences for not doing so
    – there are actual consequences when government departments and agencies break the law and when they actually act in the public interest at all times
    – when there is a functioning 4th Estate with both non-commercial public service broadcasting and support for a diversity of voices
    – and when we devise a system that’s more dynamic and suited to keeping up with the pace of change

    ( “Proponents of the four-year term generally structure their argument around how hard it is to really effect change in just three years. The public service takes a year to come up with a policy, you take another year consulting on it, and then by the time you want to do it the election is about to happen” )

    – part of the problem is to do with people having a vested interest in preserving the status quo – especially in government departments and agencies

    There’s already attempts to soften the electorate up for a 4 year term ( a referendum on the idea is apparently not such a good idea, etc. etc.), and maybe some are getting a bit frightened with the fact that before long it’ll be yoof taking the reigns of power – the generations that’ll be worse off than their parents.

  2. There is a convention that the governor general signs legislation presented to him/her by the house. Perhaps we should allow the GG to decline legislation which breaches the treaty or BORA.

Comments are closed.