A law expert says it is ironic the coalition appears to have run out of time to put a four-year Parliamentary term to a referendum.
The government has ditched a bill to put a longer electoral term to a binding referendum, citing time constraints and a desire to prioritise law and order policies.
University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the proposal is basically dead now.
"Ironically, it's dead because the government has run out of time - which is the very thing that governments say they need more of and which is why they're so keen to actually get a four-year term if they can get the public to agree to it."
The select committee that considered the bill had recommended it progress to second reading without the ACT Party's proviso a longer term came with greater checks and balances on the government of the day.
New Zealand and Australia are outliers in having three-year parliamentary terms; four- or five-year terms are far more common.
The arguments for a longer term include that three years is too short for a government to accomplish its goals, with the first year settling in and the third year all about gearing up for another campaign.
Those wary of allowing longer terms argue New Zealand lacks certain checks and balances on government power other countries have, such as a supreme court that can strike down legislation or an upper house like the Senate in Australia and the United States, or Britain's House of Lords.
Geddis said MPs clearly had concerns about the uncertainty the legislation might bring.
"The original legislative proposal, which was an ACT Party move, was that four-year terms would only happen if the government agreed to give opposition parties control [of] the select committee and that would be written into the legislation.
"The worry about that was you never actually knew whether you'd have a three-year or four-year parliamentary term until the government made the decision as to whether to let opposition have select committee power.
"Putting that into the legislation itself could create future uncertainty down the track. So the select committee said it would be better to have a simple vote on whether to have a three-year term or four-year term with no extra complications put into the legislation."
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told RNZ's Morning Report programme the government could re-look at four-year terms if it was re-elected in November this year.
Goldsmith said the National Party found the extra powers for select committees idea "very complicated".
"So our preference was to just have a simple choice - three years or four years - but you know, these are the issues you can work your way through."
Politicians talking about themselves and their arrangements was not the number one issue for New Zealanders, he believed.
