NZCPD guest

Peter Shirtcliffe CMG, now retired, has served as Chairman of Telecom New Zealand (1990-1999), the New Zealand Trade Development Board (1986-1990) and the Australia-New Zealand Business Council (1989-1990). He has been a Trustee of the Wellington City Mission, a Lieutenant- Commander in the Royal New Zealand Navy Volunteer Reserves (1953-1967) and held various directorships, including with Telecom New Zealand and Goodman Group. In 1993, Peter Shirtcliffe led the campaign to oppose the introduction of MMP.

Skip to comments | Skip to comment form | Skip to this weeks poll

NZCPD Guest Forum
Submission to Electoral Select Committee
by Peter Shirtcliffe
9 March 06

The 2005 General Election, which the Committee is now reviewing, took place 12 years after the country voted in a referendum to adopt the voting system commonly known as MMP.

In 1993, I led the campaign to oppose the introduction of MMP. This submission is not primarily to highlight the deficiencies of MMP, although these have showed up pretty much as forecast, but to formally suggest, and open up discussion on, another referendum.

My reasoning is:

During the 6-month debate in 1993, a widespread expectation developed amongst voters that at some future time they would have an opportunity to review any decision for change through another referendum.
I sought unsuccessfully to convince voters that (a) there was no provision in the new Electoral proposals for such a referendum, (b) any review was to be conducted by a Select Committee, (c) such a process was unlikely to recommend any substantive changes, or another referendum. This indeed was the outcome.
From time to time, leading politicians, when asked about the timing of another referendum, have centered their reply around the words “too soon.” This bland and non-definitive reply has done nothing to dispel the expectation in the community that there will be a further referendum.
After a 12-year interval, I am astonished at the number of approaches I still get, sometimes from people I do not know, asking when the (expected) referendum will be held. At around the time of the 2005 Election, I noticed a significant increase in these questions, with some finding it difficult to believe that their long-held belief was ill-founded.
Following the 1993 referendum, polling of voters suggested that about a third did so out of a conviction that it was a better voting system. (Hunt, “Why MMP Must Go” @ p 171.) 85.2% of registered voters cast a vote, with only 53.9% of these preferring MMP. These figures suggest that (a) 15% of the electorate voted for MMP on its merits and (b) New Zealand changed its system of voting largely because of a wish to protest against politicians and broken political promises. This is hardly a sound basis on which to amend an important part of our constitutional arrangements.
My belief is that there was a generally unrecognized (and almost subconscious) factor in the voting pattern in the 2005 Election. I would submit that many voters, whether or not they still expect another referendum, are now “shrugging their shoulders” and recognizing that the way to modify or negate the impact of MMP is simply to revert to 2-party voting. This would in part account for the roughly 80% control of the House held by Labour and National between them.
I would further submit, in the strongest possible terms, that the basis on which we elect our parliament is a matter for voter, not parliamentary decision. Parliament’s role should now be to declare that a binding referendum is due and timely, and I respectfully suggest that this committee recommend to the House accordingly.
Obviously, there is work to be done on the mechanics of the referendum. As to timing, my present view is that it would be best dealt with separately from a general election. It is a constitutional matter, best, I suggest, kept untainted by the trivia and emotion of the normal election process. Additionally, if held reasonably soon, any changes could be implemented co-incidentally with the next general election. As to wording, the overriding principle should be simplicity.

As a basis for discussion, assuming that a full rerun of the previous 2-stage,

5-option scenario is seen as complicated and cumbersome, perhaps a simple 3-option approach would suffice. My suggestion would be to offer: