Bad idea!
We need better politicians and better laws
NOT less experience

I’m not sure NZ is big enough to get good enough replacement options. I also agree with one of the other comments which stated it could create very short term policy thinking. Get in on big popular policy promises which is extremely bad in the long run &/or promises you don’t intend to keep.

I think we’ll need to agree to disagree. I have no concrete evidence of my view but I have yet to see the concrete evidence of yours. The job of politicians is making the law and, like anything, I believe inexperience is a hindrance. If we have been subject to a lack of choice in politics that reflects our voting habits rather than a systemic issue (maybe the voting habits are the systemic issue). I would be careful using Roman republican examples. The Roman Republic was extremely conservative and they had a negative decision making model (where no trumps yes). It was also designed to maintain the status quo of the day (extremely conservative) and was as much about preventing the reappearance of military kings as anything else. We have different struggles.

Graeme Kiyoto-Ward, we already have short-term thinking even with career politicians, so I doubt it could get any worse. Your point 2 is curious – are you suggesting that politicians would effectively refuse to do their job just because they were getting towards the end of their tenure? What evidence do you have to support that? If anything, I would have thought the opposite would be true, as politicians love to “leave a legacy”.
In terms of a problem statement, you mention the value of experience. The issue is that experience of being a politician is not what is needed, but experience of real life. Winston Peters may be entertaining, but what actual experience of real life does he have, given that he has been in parliament for the last couple of millennia? By limiting politicians’ terms, you would ensure that parliament was constantly being refreshed with new ideas. The last two governments have been dominated by dogma, filled with career politicians intent on keeping their seats, blindly following the party line rather than actually trying to solve the big issues.
In the Roman Republic there was the notion of the “Cursus Honorum”, a sequence of offices that were strictly limited in term (usually annual), with limits on the interval between holding the office again. This mechanism ensured that public offices were shared out across many people, so that no one individual or group could dominate political power. Public office was treated as a duty, not a lifestyle. We need to bring that approach back into our political structure, so that politicians are there to serve the country, not the other way round.

I think two terms would be better but I agree with the principal.

I’m keen to understand the problem this is trying to solve. I get that ancient, low value windage politicians are a pain but for the most part, I believe we benefit from the experience. My specific concerns with this are (1) could it lead to short term thinking (2) could it reduce the effectiveness of government as MPs, approaching the end of the maximum term, stop trying (especially if it’s 25% of them at a time). We have low levels of corruption, good engagement and stable government. Is it clear that there’s a problem to fix? Happy to change the dislike to important if there’s a clear problem statement.

Better to have a four year term. Don’t kick out good pollies who are doing good things as would happen with this suggestion, just vote out the bad