Kieran Maddenz, of the conservative Maxim Institute states, ''After much research and consideration, [the institute] is submitting the time is right for a four-year term.''(ODT, 24.7.13).
Yet, his article contains nothing more substantive than the view that MMP has brought us minority coalition governments which disperse ''once rampant executive power'' and shore up a ''shaky legislative process''; and that Bills are ''more likely to receive the rigorous scrutiny they deserve'' through stronger select committee process and inter-party negotiations.
But, unfortunately, all this means law-making has slowed up and so governments need another year on the parliamentary term to get through their business. Sounds reasonable enough.
Until you do more ''research and consideration'' and realise this current government, which is very keen on a four-year term, is willing to change laws to suit international corporations, conducts major trade negotiations in secret and wants to be a compliant agent of US spying and law enforcement.
It is also doing its best to reduce community engagement and power in key decision-making areas such as those under the Resource Management Act.
An extra year would bring more, not less, of this kind of government.
MMP has mitigated much bad legislation but not prevented the ''parliamentary recklessness'' of which Prof Jeremy Waldron speaks.
There remains abuse of democratic process in the belief that gaining 47% of the vote entitles a party to absolute power, with the annoying need for a few minor party buy-offs along the way.
The current Government's respect for our ''solid proportional voting system,'' as Mr Maddenz puts it, can be judged by its offhand rejection of the Electoral Commission's conservative recommendations for the improvement of MMP.
Recommendations that followed the Government's own mandated referendum and review of MMP. Recommendations that were arrived at after nationwide discussion and consultation. So much for democracy.
When the recommendations of the current Constitutional Review Panel appear, we should not be surprised if the Government cherry-picks the four-year term as an idea whose time has come, perhaps citing the Maxim Institute.
Yet the Maxim's ''much research and consideration'', remarkably, does not throw up what often goes with a four-year term, especially in the home of MMP.
Four-year terms in Germany come with their own safeguards, without relying simply on the electoral system. Terms are fixed, as they are in the United States, so the business of government, and the nation, can be conducted without the uncertainty of snap elections, the decision of one man or woman to go to the polls.
Just as important is the provision for ''constructive votes of no confidence'', or ''investiture votes'', that allow for the formation of an alternative government from the existing Parliament if a government loses the confidence of the House.
A new government would then have the right to complete the current four-year term or call an election beforehand.
In any case, a four-year term could backfire for those politicians who are greedy for more power.
The New Zealand pattern has been to give a new government a fair go, a second three-year term unless something disastrous has happened, and a third if they manage it well.
Would any government ever get beyond two four-year terms?
Unlikely.
In the end, the people must have their say in a binding referendum on a four-year term, and only with the safeguards attached.
If the Government wants it, then it first needs to show respect for the voting public by accepting the Electoral Commission's recommended reforms of MMP.
''Trust us, we know what we're doing'' no longer cuts the mustard.
• Philip Temple is a Dunedin author.
