When the Government announced yesterday that it wants to have a binding referendum on a four-year parliamentary term here in New Zealand, I was all for it.  

I've been all for it for a while now. 

But I’m totally against the idea that we do the same with local councils. In fact, I’m so against it, that it could be enough to put me off voting in favour of a four-year parliamentary term.  

That’s how strongly I feel about it.  

Four-year local government terms is something the outfit representing most councils, Local Government New Zealand, has been wanting for a while now.   

Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has jumped on the bandwagon too. He also thinks that a four-year term would be great for councils.  

He might feel that way, and Local Government New Zealand might feel that way, but it’s the last thing we want for our local councils. 

There are a couple of reasons why I’m comfortable with central government getting a four-year term. First and foremost, I don’t think three years is enough time for governments to get stuff done.   

The other reason why I’m good with central governments getting an extra year in power is that governments, generally, are pretty functional.  

That's because if you’re in government, you have to toe the party line. I know David Seymour and Winston Peters test that a bit, but that’s MMP and it’s what coalition governments are all about. But generally, governments keep it together and stick together for the full term.   

Councils though – completely different story. Just the other day we had a councillor in Christchurch accusing the mayor of lacking leadership.   

We’ve got factions around that table, and I don’t imagine other councils are any different. Why on earth would you want to drag that out for an extra year?  

How often do you hear Phil Mauger and his supporters lamenting the fact that he doesn’t have enough like-minded councillors around the table with him and how that impedes him from making any meaningful change? You hear it all the time.  

Why would you want to give that lot an extra year? The answer is you wouldn’t.  

With central government ministers, for example, if they do a hopeless job they either lose their portfolios or they resign.  

A mayor can’t do that. A mayor of any council is stuck with whoever we vote and put into council alongside them.  

Wellington is another brilliant example of a dysfunctional council. Why would people there want to lumber their city with that line-up for another year? They wouldn’t.  

Aside from the fact that most councillors in most councils find it hard to get on with each other, the other thing that makes local government in less need of a four-year term than central government, is that councils are actually much better than central government when it comes to long-term planning. 

Not to get too bogged down in council-speak, but councils have these 10-year plans. Governments don’t. With councils, you don’t have the holus-bolus cancelling of stuff that you can get when there’s a change of government, either.  

At the council, there’s a plan in place and after an election you just have a new lot overseeing it. So this argument that councils need more time to get stuff done doesn’t wash with me. Unlike governments. Which do.   

Because governments come in and change policies and do things like cancel ferry contracts. The disruption can be huge.  

And they need more time, if anything, to clean up the mess they can create when they’re first elected.    

So for me, the differences between central government and local government are huge and thinking they both need to four-year terms is nonsense.  

And as I say, if councils getting four-year terms is the by-product of central government getting four-year terms, then I’ll be voting “no” in the referendum.