Actually the main problem with the New Zealand parliamentary system is the short three year term. The two main parties always get 30-40% chunks of the vote apiece, and from there it is generally just a matter of the largest winner cobbling together a coalition out of agreeable minority parties, of which there are always an ample supply. And, as every cabinet since MMP has been a coalition cabinet, all of the parties have gained extensive experience in how to make these arrangements work. Sticking points are hashed out in the post-election night negotiations and, as far as I am aware, no coalitions have ever fallen apart or gotten into serious squabbling later on. It helps that the minor parties are all pretty pragmatic about their relative lack of negotiating power, and used to trading horses.
It's the short term that really hamstrings the ability of parliament to go through a thorough, protracted legislative review process and pass high-quality new acts. A lot of legislation-in-progress gets shelved as election year approaches, and when the new term rolls round, and the new parliament gets settled in, conditions have changed and the process needs to be started afresh. And legislation that does get passed is often rushed and quickly becomes obvious that as needing revision. The result is in my understanding a recurrent self-reinforcing cycle of low-quality legislation.
It could be worse. The US Congress has 2-year terms for their lower house. There's never a moment when the next election is out of view.
Most Australian states have 4-year terms, some of them are fixed by legislation. Whether or not it improves matters is obscured by the problem that anybody with talent is trying to get into the Commonwealth Parliament. Our State governments are traditionally fantastically inept and frequently corrupt, regardless of party.
Australia also has a law preventing electioneering more than 30 days out from the election. Sure, the pollies are always jostling for media space and saying "we're better than those guys", but they can't pay for political advertising outside the electioneering period - if you're not interested in politics, you won't see much in the media in-between elections. This moratorium on political advertising is one of our most unappreciated laws.
Where are you getting only 3 days from? It's definitely not 3 days from experience. Either that, or every funded political party is breaking the law.
EDIT: rereading your link, it looks like it's 33 days at the local council level, but at the federal level it's 'when the election date is called', which works out to being a similar thing (as it's usually a similar amount of time): the years between elections are free of electioneering.
"relevant period" , in relation to an election, means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the polling day for the election and ends at the close of the poll on that polling day.
3A (2), (3) and (4) all include this language:
the broadcaster must not broadcast under the licence an election advertisement in relation to the election during the relevant period.
They vary only to cover different sorts of broadcasters.
You seem to be ignoring the very important word "not". What you're quoting is the exact opposite of what you think you're quoting - the broadcaster must NOT broadcast an election ad during that 3-day period.
Then you've utterly misunderstood me. I'm saying that there is no electioneering between elections, only in the immediate lead-up to one - it's pretty quiet here in the intervening years.
Rereading your link, it seems I am in error. You certainly don't see much in the way of paid political advertising before an election is called though - unlike in the US where there's a frightening amount of electioneering.
I've heard that the 3-year term is a check on the unicameral legislature and parliamentary system. Essentially, the government has license to "ram through" all the laws they want to, but if it turns out to be a bunch of ridiculous nonsense that the public hates then they get kicked out relatively quickly. Contrast this with the American system, in which the executive branch, the house of reps and the senate are all decided upon independently, often leading to political gridlock.
Comments
Actually the main problem with the New Zealand parliamentary system is the short three year term. The two main parties always get 30-40% chunks of the vote apiece, and from there it is generally just a matter of the largest winner cobbling together a coalition out of agreeable minority parties, of which there are always an ample supply. And, as every cabinet since MMP has been a coalition cabinet, all of the parties have gained extensive experience in how to make these arrangements work. Sticking points are hashed out in the post-election night negotiations and, as far as I am aware, no coalitions have ever fallen apart or gotten into serious squabbling later on. It helps that the minor parties are all pretty pragmatic about their relative lack of negotiating power, and used to trading horses.
It's the short term that really hamstrings the ability of parliament to go through a thorough, protracted legislative review process and pass high-quality new acts. A lot of legislation-in-progress gets shelved as election year approaches, and when the new term rolls round, and the new parliament gets settled in, conditions have changed and the process needs to be started afresh. And legislation that does get passed is often rushed and quickly becomes obvious that as needing revision. The result is in my understanding a recurrent self-reinforcing cycle of low-quality legislation.
It could be worse. The US Congress has 2-year terms for their lower house. There's never a moment when the next election is out of view.
Most Australian states have 4-year terms, some of them are fixed by legislation. Whether or not it improves matters is obscured by the problem that anybody with talent is trying to get into the Commonwealth Parliament. Our State governments are traditionally fantastically inept and frequently corrupt, regardless of party.
Australia also has a law preventing electioneering more than 30 days out from the election. Sure, the pollies are always jostling for media space and saying "we're better than those guys", but they can't pay for political advertising outside the electioneering period - if you're not interested in politics, you won't see much in the media in-between elections. This moratorium on political advertising is one of our most unappreciated laws.
It's not 30 days. It's 3 days.
It's from the Wednesday before the Saturday of the election, until and including that Saturday.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214...
Where are you getting only 3 days from? It's definitely not 3 days from experience. Either that, or every funded political party is breaking the law.
EDIT: rereading your link, it looks like it's 33 days at the local council level, but at the federal level it's 'when the election date is called', which works out to being a similar thing (as it's usually a similar amount of time): the years between elections are free of electioneering.
1. Definitions:
"relevant period" , in relation to an election, means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the polling day for the election and ends at the close of the poll on that polling day.
3A (2), (3) and (4) all include this language:
the broadcaster must not broadcast under the licence an election advertisement in relation to the election during the relevant period.
They vary only to cover different sorts of broadcasters.
You seem to be ignoring the very important word "not". What you're quoting is the exact opposite of what you think you're quoting - the broadcaster must NOT broadcast an election ad during that 3-day period.
I'm not sure what you're driving at.
I quoted it to show that the blackout period is created by the "must not broadcast" phrases. So ... you're agreeing with me? I'm confused.
Then you've utterly misunderstood me. I'm saying that there is no electioneering between elections, only in the immediate lead-up to one - it's pretty quiet here in the intervening years.
What I was reacting to was:
> Australia also has a law preventing electioneering more than 30 days out from the election.
There isn't such a law. (And I misread you, thinking you said that there was a low against election ads within 30 days of an election).
You can campaign your heart out up until the blackout period.
Rereading your link, it seems I am in error. You certainly don't see much in the way of paid political advertising before an election is called though - unlike in the US where there's a frightening amount of electioneering.
My apologies.
No apology is required.
I've heard that the 3-year term is a check on the unicameral legislature and parliamentary system. Essentially, the government has license to "ram through" all the laws they want to, but if it turns out to be a bunch of ridiculous nonsense that the public hates then they get kicked out relatively quickly. Contrast this with the American system, in which the executive branch, the house of reps and the senate are all decided upon independently, often leading to political gridlock.