One argument against New Zealand moving to four year parliaments is that there is no second chamber. By all means have a longer term, but in the absence of more regular mandate refreshes, add some checks and balances.
@billbennett If we had a second chamber it should be elected and the election always take place 2 years after the other house was elected. My main objection is the cost. We would need to make smoking compulsory to pay for it all.
@billbennett MMP's the checks and balances, in that coalitions usually restrict the worst of policies being implemented. Not that I'm in favour of a four year term.
@billbennett We used to have one, but got rid of it. We're such a small country, population wise, I'd think it'd be overkill. Then there's the unelected vs elected option. How would it be chosen? If elected, it'd probably just end up as a mirror of parliament.
@billbennett Our government is already made up of regional representatives, as well as party representatives, with a lot of overlap. What would an upper house do that's not already being done? We have a governor general who does next to nothing out of the ordinary, but is there on the off-chance he may need to over-rule the government on something or other one day. What's the problem that needs to be fixed here?
Add comment