Peter Shirtcliffe Slams MMP Referendum Timeframe at Select Committee
Put MMP to the Vote co-founder Peter Shirtcliffe yesterday evening presented an oral submission to the Electoral
Legislation Select Committee on the Electoral Referendum Bill in which he strongly criticised the proposed drawn-out
timeframe.
Mr Shirtcliffe said he was passionate about the need to have the referendum distinguished by two characteristics –
neutrality and expedition; however he doubted Justice Minister Simon Power shared the same passion.
“Quite clearly, Parliament, and certainly Minister Power, does not share my passion, and you are thus deliberating on a
Bill which is seriously flawed in two vital areas. In our view, Parliament is unenthusiastically ‘ticking the box’ on an
election promise and seeking to minimise disturbance to the status quo, particularly for list members.
“The virtual unanimity in the House at the time of the Bill's introduction, Minister Power's unwillingness to engage
constructively outside the closed parliamentary or bureaucratic environment and the proposed 9-year implementation time
frame, since the 2008 election support this view.”
Mr Shirtcliffe compared the situation to a panel beater designing an intersection and asked the committee to reflect on
two further issues.
“First, the growing acceptance by too many MPs, within the MMP environment, that rorting their expense accounts is not
theft. It is, and it doesn't sit well with households who are being told to tighten their belts. Is this the result of
MMP? Of course – a cottage industry of greed and deception has been encouraged by the concept of the list MP. The number
of advisers, consultants, spins doctors and other functionaries who now live off the parliamentary gravy train as a
direct result of MMP is staggering
“Second, the Government has adopted a laudable goal of matching Australia's standard of living by 2025. Anyone who
believes that can be done under MMP must believe that kissing the MMP frog will turn it into a prince.”
The Put MMP to the Vote co-founder said that these two issues, plus the application of a little common sense, warrant a
rethink on two key parts of the Bill.
“The proposed timeframe is a nonsense, and unconscionable. Voters are entitled, if they are going to have a say, to have
it in as timely a manner as possible.
“Parliament needs to understand, that if the end point of this thing is 2017, public apathy will overtake the process.
This is unhealthy for democracy, and risks putting the issue on the road to oblivion” Mr Shirtcliffe said.
Peter Shirtcliffe’s full submission can be read at www.petershirtcliffe.co.nz/mmp-referendum-downloads
ENDS