Guy Trafford finds National's opportunistic climate policy flip-flops extraordinarily disappointing when farmers need to champion the science to remain credible and competitive

It’s about now as we start the countdown for the next elections that a four-year term starts to seem really attractive.

The benefits of a three-year term are; if you don’t the like the current government you can turf them out (or at least try to) a year earlier than would otherwise be the case. This may sound a minor benefit. But given that oppositions to government have become more extreme in the last couple of terms, having a shorter term may mean some of these groupings may not resort to more extreme actions of civil disobedience than would be the case if they thought they had another year to wait before having a chance to exercise their democratic right.

We saw the extremes, by New Zealand standards, in what began as an anti-vax movement but then morphed into anti anything that the disaffected didn’t like. This probably wouldn’t have altered much whether the term was a three- or four-year term as rational debate appeared to have been thrown out the window. But there have been other issues such as Three Waters and the Groundswell movement against some government policies where I wonder if there was still another year plus to wait before those groups or individuals have the chance to exercise their rights to vote, whether they would remain as ‘civil’ as they have. Especially given the passion some seem to feel around these issues.

So, to me, a net benefit for the three-year term but whether it is enough on balance to stay with it, I’m not sure. An interesting project for an up and coming political scientist could be to compare the amount of disturbance between three or four year systems, although the three-year term systems are getting few on the ground now with only five countries left still using them.

Looking at Wikipedia’s list of electoral systems and length of periods between elections the countries with three year terms they are all in Oceania with Australia and New Zealand pus some of our smaller pacific neighbours making the list. This doesn’t necessarily mean four (or longer) terms are better but it may be an indicator and while there has been plenty of discussion around having a referendum between three and four years I haven’t seen too much evidence or information put out to the general public to help people form sound decisions. Although as elections seem to be run on ‘seat of your pants’ bias and ‘knowledge, perhaps keeping a referendum to the same has some merit.

The obvious benefits for a four year term (I think a five year term is pushing the boundaries for most except the most ardent anti electioneers’) are that it gives the incoming government more time to develop and roll out policies that, hopefully, are better constructed and not necessarily a reaction to short-term populous politics. Although, of course there is no guarantee of that.

Also, a four-year term is a cheaper option spreading an elections costs over four years rather than three.

Compounding the economic impacts is at least one study has shown that prior to elections very little economic expansions occurs leading up to them. The resulting declines, which are called reverse electoral business cycles, require sufficient levels of polarisation between major parties and electoral competitiveness.

Sticking with elections, for the agricultural sector the flip-flopping of the emissions policies for livestock farming by National could possibly be considered to be a reaction to the short-term populous category. The Act Party have been consistent in their views but National seem to be sniffing the breeze and letting policy take them after their nose.

One of the reasons New Zealand has such a mountain to climb in regard to getting emissions under some sort of control is due to National throwing out or devaluing programmes going back to 2009 which could have softened the costs today.

Their latest policy of seems to be a return to the past and sends a message to farmers that they don’t really need to take reductions seriously as they will undo what has gone before. What is a little surprising is the sums regarding election wins or losses National must have done in coming up with this policy. The farming sector who are likely to vote National due to this policy are likely to be voters who would vote National anyway. But how many swingers are likely to move to a ‘greener’ party because of yet more delays to a workable policy?

National may believe on balance they stand to gain. But when you see the numbers of people switching to EV’s and hybrids you can’t help but think the public in general want to lower emissions and not just the fringe “greenies”.

With the cost of new EV’s etc it is the wealthier end of society that is buying these cars and not cheaper Nissan Leaf’s (by ‘tree huggers” and I say this with the best intentions not to stigmatise) which, while useful, are going to those with less surplus cash.

Given the time spent coming up with a workable policy and, at least in my eyes, the distance between what most farming groups were prepared to live with and what government was offering not being insurmountable (especially) in an election year. To throw out this work seems almost immoral.

Negotiating should always begin with what you can agree upon and then build from there, except, it seems, in an election year.

A balance to that criticism, National have shown some positive leadership what they are proposing around genetic modification which does sound a step forward and better considered.