Rights and trade-offs

Changing how Parliament works would affect voters, candidates, and the ability of a government to act. These costs deserve as much attention as the hoped-for benefits. The proposals below are open to challenge and revision.

Four-year terms and term limits

Four years could give a government more time to deliver long-term work, but voters would wait longer for an election than they do now. Annual reports, public hearings, independent scrutiny, and clear commitment tracking would need to operate throughout the term. Our accountability proposal sets out a starting model. Three MP terms and two Prime Minister terms could make room for new people while also stopping voters from re-electing an effective representative. The Bill of Rights protects adult citizens' eligibility for Parliament, so any MP term limit needs a compelling public case and independent legal scrutiny. The detailed rules for partial terms and unexpected elections remain open.

A 75% threshold

Broader agreement could make laws more durable. It could also let a minority block urgent or popular reforms and make it harder to repeal a harmful law. A high threshold might reward keeping things as they are, even when evidence calls for change. We have not established that requiring 75% for ordinary laws would improve decisions; that is the central claim to test. The fictional 74% housing example shows what failure would mean and puts possible Budget, emergency, and deadlock rules on the table. Those possible exceptions are not yet settled policy. We need to test them against the principle of equal democratic representation and the practical need to govern.

The same proposed threshold for major new financial commitments could stop a wasteful project before the country is bound to it. It could also delay a needed investment, increase bid costs, or let a minority block infrastructure that voters support. We have not defined the qualifying size, how to protect commercial information, or an urgent-decision route. The major-project proposal should not be treated as a finished approval process.

Transparency and privacy

A lobbying register could expose hidden influence, including who paid for it. It must not expose a person asking an MP for help, a confidential whistleblower, or information that creates a genuine safety risk. Exemptions should be narrow, explained, and independently reviewed. Read the register proposal.

If evidence shows that a proposal does more harm than good, we should change it. Our idea format asks each policy to name the evidence that would change our minds.