Stalemate within Government led to four-year term referendum being put off
Thursday, 19 February 2026
The parties in the coalition were not able to agree on how to proceed with a referendum on a four-year electoral term, with the stalemate ending in the plebiscite being punted into the future.
The Post understands ACT was unwilling to proceed with the referendum without its proposed changes to select committees, which were seen as unworkable by other parties.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced the Government would not be pursuing a referendum on a four-year term on Wednesday night, saying the Government had other priorities in the Justice space.
“To have a referendum would require passing the bill through the rest of its stages, with enough time to prepare. It's something that a future government might do, but our priority is progressing legislation that will help fix the basics in law and order,” Goldsmith said.
Read More:
ACT leader David Seymour pushes radical plan to slash ministers and merge departments
The best places to work (and get paid) in the public service
Created by politics, tested by an election: Inside the Ministry for Regulation
But ACT leader David Seymour said in a Facebook post the real sticking point was his proposal to change select committees.
“As part of our coalition agreement, the bill’s been debated, but for now it’s stopped. Our partners in Government don’t want to continue with the independent select committee part,” Seymour said.
Seymour’s members bill on a four-year term created a complex new system where the default would stay at three years, but Governments would be able to extend to a four year term if they agreed to a change in select committees that would in effect hand control of them over to the Opposition.
Seymour believed this extra check was needed on Governments given one more year of power and that people would not vote for four-year terms without some new control on Government power.
But other parties on the Justice select committee believed this proposal was unworkable.
“A variable term would risk creating uncertainty for the public, local government, businesses, and communities regarding the frequency of changes to government policy,” the committee wrote.
Voters have rejected four-year terms at the ballot box twice - in 1967 and 1990 - both times by wide margins.
Talk of a four-year term gained serious traction in recent years, with most political parties suggesting some support if voters backed it.
NZ First and ACT both put proposals for a referendum on a term into their coalition agreements with National.
Goldsmith said these agreements were fulfilled by passing Seymour’s bill to select committee.
Former National MP and current Nelson mayor Nick Smith said he was disappointed with the stopped proposal.
“I have long held the view that the country would be better served by both government and councils having a four year term and welcomed ACT’s 2025 bill to put it to a referendum,” Smith wrote in a Facebook post.
“None of the big issues facing government or councils can be sorted in three years and the short electoral term encourages gimmicks over substantive policy.”