Want a reason to oppose a 4-year term?

Just look at who supports it:

• Graham Stuart (CEO, Sealord Group): "The current three-year term causes governments to favour more populist policies and defer taking some of the tougher calls that are often needed to serve New Zealanders' longer term interests". That would be populist issues like eliminating slave-fishing, perhaps?
  
• David Mossop (Director, Paradox Strategic Management): "Any government of the day is going to be constrained to small incremental changes in order to achieve outcomes that are merely adaptations of the former government's agendas... A four-year, or even a five-year, term, regardless of the political agenda, therefore has to be a good thing."
  
• Kim Campbell (CEO, EMA): "What business wants is certainty . . . no matter what the circumstances may be you can factor in a plan for it, but if things keep changing all the time nothing settles down."
  
• Bob Fenwick (Managing Director, Planhorse Systems): "There are many instances in the past where governments have been voted out when they have started policies which would be of benefit to the country but which are never implemented because the other party that gets in"
  
• Eric Hertz (CEO, 2 Degrees): "As a company that is continually making large investment decisions, we need policy-makers who can execute on their longer-term view with less concern for imminent re-election battles."
  

"Certainty". "Tougher calls". "Less concern for [re-election]". I think that speaks volumes. Our business community is united in their contempt for us, and in their desire to take our sole real check on government away from us, so that it can better serve their interests.

We shouldn't let them get away with it.