When it comes to parliamentary term lengths and etiquette, my colleague and boss Dr Oliver Hartwich is sadly misguided.

The arguments for four- (or five-) year fixed parliamentary term can be summed up as stability, predictability and giving government time to implement its agenda. By having a longer fixed term, government governs better.

This is all well but ignores the basic principle that liberal democracies are founded upon: fear of tyranny. This fear is institutionalised through checks and balances to limit power of government.

In New Zealand such checks are few. Parliament is sovereign and can do whatever it wants. A three-year term is the only method the New Zealand public have to curb this power. Why would they want to give it away?

It is a basic precautionary principle. Ask the question: What would you prefer if there is a really awful government? I bet the answer is not a longer term.

Proponents of four-year terms argue that three years is not enough time to get things done (a year settling, a year governing, a year campaigning). This ignores the evidence: New Zealand’s reforming governments all have had three year-terms, with the biggest reforms usually occurring within the first two years.

Consider the contrast: the Key government’s first term was largely taken up with policy by committee. The government farmed out its agenda formulation to working groups of the good and great, which were then ignored to varying degrees. It raises the question: If a government doesn’t know why it is in office, why will a longer term help it achieve anything?

And finally, discretionary elections are a good idea. Long terms with fixed dates guarantee that loser MPs and lame duck governments hang around for the maximum possible time, doing the minimum possible good.

That public pressure, parliamentary uncertainty, or need for a mandate can (under certain circumstances) trigger an election is a positive. Flexible institutional arrangements can aid democratic legitimacy.

Europeans often think that long fixed terms are a ‘grown up’ and ‘sensible’ method of governing. Perhaps so, if one wants a massive Eurocracy, bloated welfare states, debt crises, and ineffective tenured politicians. But for more responsive electoral arrangements that inflict less potential damage on the long suffering public, three years is the way to go.