How change happens

Status: Draft route · Last reviewed: 12 October 2026

The governance ideas ask for a different way of making decisions. They cannot all begin on the same day or be put in place by the same decision-maker. This is a route for testing them, hearing objections, and making changes with a clear public mandate.

Start with practices Parliament can test

Parties could agree to publish a small set of measurable election commitments, report on them each year, and invite other MPs into the early drafting of major proposals. They could publish the terms, costs, and effects of any cross-party bargain before a final vote. A government could voluntarily publish more detail about meetings with lobbyists. Parliament could ask a select committee to examine what works and what needs a stronger rule.

Parliament's Standing Orders govern much of the House's work, including debate and committee processes. The House reviews them each parliamentary term, and the public can submit ideas during a review. A proposed trial of earlier cross-party scrutiny could be put to that process. The House would decide whether to adopt a change; Better Ancestors cannot change its rules by publishing a proposal.

A one-off people's forum could also test recruitment, balanced evidence, and public response before anyone promises a permanent institution. It would need a willing commissioner, funding, and a published mandate. Its recommendations would advise elected decision-makers.

Turn proven practices into clear obligations

Voluntary promises depend on the people in office. A mandatory lobbying register, enforceable disclosure duties, or a lasting forum with a defined public-response duty would need detailed rules. Legislation may be needed for their proposed powers, duties, funding, and independent oversight. We would publish a draft model, costs, privacy protections, and options for public submissions before asking Parliament to enact it.

The proposed three-term MP limit and two-term Prime Minister limit also need careful legal design. The rules would have to explain partial terms, candidacy, a mid-term change of Prime Minister, and how a government retains the House's confidence. Any limit on eligibility for Parliament must be tested against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act's electoral rights. We should ask for independent constitutional and rights analysis before treating these limits as a final bill.

Our proposed 75% starting rule for passing or changing laws aims to draw more MPs into drafting and public debate. It needs the same scrutiny. A voluntary trial could test whether earlier cross-party work leads to better amendments and wider participation. A binding rule would need a precise legal mechanism, and agreement on budgets, emergencies, repeals, routine changes, and deadlock. Parliament's rules on entrenchment require a protected provision to receive the level of support that it would later demand for amendment. Our 74% worked example tests a limited redraft and forum process, followed by a possible two-thirds vote in two Parliaments separated by an election. That route is a draft proposal, not an existing voting rule.

We also propose 75% support from all MPs for defined major new financial commitments, including some projects that need no project-specific law today. Parliament already authorises spending through appropriations; Cabinet and Ministers make investment decisions within those limits. A separate parliamentary approval would need a clear cost threshold, timing before a binding contract, rules for Crown entities, and a legal mechanism that works with the Public Finance Act. These details should be designed with public finance and constitutional advice. The Treasury's guide to public finance · Our major-project proposal

Put a longer parliamentary term to a protected decision

Parliament currently has a three-year maximum term. A four-year maximum would change a protected provision. Under section 268 of the Electoral Act, the amending law would need either 75% of all MPs or a majority of valid votes in a national referendum. A general expression of public support would not itself make the legal change. Parliament explains the referendum route.

Before asking for either route, the public should see the full package of stronger checks between elections, the case for four years rather than three or five, and the arguments against extending a government's time in office.

A sequence the public can judge

1. Publish the designs. Put the exact proposed rules, costs, rights effects, and strongest objections in one place. Mark what is still unsettled.
2. Trial what can be trialled. Test cross-party drafting, open progress reports, fuller voluntary disclosure, and one independently run people's forum. Publish the results, including failures.
3. Revise in public. Ask affected people, Māori, constitutional experts, and parties across Parliament to challenge the designs. Explain what changes because of their evidence.
4. Seek the right decision for each change. Put proposed laws through Parliament and public submissions. Use the protected approval route for a longer parliamentary term. State who will administer and independently review each new rule.
5. Check whether it worked. Report whether laws improved, participation widened, influence became visible, and long-term commitments survived scrutiny. Keep the power to revise a reform that causes harm or deadlock.

We would measure progress by the quality and durability of decisions, not by the number of new rules adopted.

Help test this route: What should Parliament try first? What would make a 75% rule safe enough to consider? What would give a people's forum a meaningful voice while keeping elected representatives accountable? Send your view or a correction.