The Facts About Binding Referendums

Back to article list

It's a Civil decision!

10-06-04
by Steve Baron

The Civil Union Bill will soon be decided by yet another conscience vote in Parliament. In recent years there have been numerous conscience votes on issues like prostitution, abortion, lowering the drinking age and euthanasia. But how democratic is this and how democratic is the New Zealand political system, seriously? The essence of a democracy is supposed to be a government "of, by and for the people". Politicians are supposed to represent the wishes of the people but it seems clear that all too frequently, this simply does not happen. Governments have their own agendas and their own supporters to appease.

There is another fundamental problem at the core of the argument in favour of Representative Democracy. If a politician is supposed to truly represent his/her electorate then what is the point of a "conscience vote" in parliament? An MP's conscience may be totally out of touch with the consciences of the people in his or her electorate.

Once a government is elected it can and does dictate policy for the ensuing three years of its term of office, whether or not its various legislative initiatives have a popular mandate or majority support of voters. But there are no checks or balances and governments can, and often do, stray from what the majority of New Zealanders want. Some would say we have one day of democracy then three years of an elected dictatorship? Recently the government passed legislation to remove appeals to the Privy Council. This was a major constitutional change and in most countries would have required a binding referendum, but not here in New Zealand! The lifting of the GE moratorium is a another good example. A huge majority of New Zealanders do not want GE getting in to their food chain yet the government refuses to listen to them.

When first originated, our so-called "Representative Democracy" was a ground breaking initiative. Locals elected a representative who went to Parliament to vote as directed by his electors and then return home to inform the local people what had happened. In those days the representative had a close association with his electorate of around three hundred voters. This made their task very practical, as compared to electorates of today, which often cover hundreds of miles and represent thousands of voters. Yet we still use a system which was established hundreds of years ago and has hardly changed in essence since.

In the past New Zealand also had two houses of Parliament, the Upper House being called the Legislative Council. This Upper House could override the Lower House, and sometimes did, similar to the way the US Senate can and does often refuse to pass legislation passed by the House of Representatives. In the 1950's the Legislative Council was abolished. So today we do not even have the added security of an Upper House.

Over time the power of the government has grown as the power of the People has diminished. Without stretching too far, it seems fair to say that governments believe they are Sovereign and not the People. But I say the People are Sovereign and that Parliament is only there to represent the People. It was US President Thomas Jefferson who observed, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves".

Is it any wonder that the People have become frustrated when they are continually ignored and patronised? Is it any wonder they have little confidence in Parliament or politicians? Is it now time for some Direct Democracy?

Elitists say the People can not be expected to understand the complexities or be fully informed to make any sort of reasonable decision on important issues. If that is the case then how can one explain the success of the Swiss who have managed to sort through such complex issues over the last 130 years using Binding Citizens Initiated Referendums?

Could referendums be manipulated by the wealthy (as if politicians can’t!)? There is no historical evidence to support such a claim. In many of the studies done overseas the opposite has occurred. People have become suspicious and turned against well funded advertising campaigns. There are also spending limits in the current Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 to protect against this.

Could the wording of a referendum question be manipulated in such a way to warrant a certain response? What about the wording being ambiguous or misleading as was the case with the Norm Withers petition? This is a very important issue and many recommend that a Referendum Panel be appointed with the expertise to ensure this does not happen. They would be responsible for producing a well balanced referendum pamphlet and website. This would give constructive comment for and against the referendum question. Each voter would receive the referendum pamphlet prior to any referendum, ensuring the public would be well informed.

Could minority rights and interests be unduly affected by referendums? Again there is no historical evidence of this whatsoever. In fact there are two instances that come to mind where exactly the opposite occurred. Australia voted overwhelmingly to give Aboriginals more rights under the Australian Constitution and in another referendum the Australians voted overwhelming not to outlaw the Communist Party at the height of communism. BCIR.org.nz have also recommended that if 75% of MP’s agree, then they can veto the referendum within 30 days thereby giving the People a check and balance on politicians and politicians a check and balance on the People.

So what sort of issues could or should be decided by referendums? The answer to that is very simple. Any issue that can trigger a referendum by the collection of the required number of signatures of those registered on the electoral roll (currently 10% which is approximately 300,000 signatures). If any New Zealander or group of New Zealanders can collect this number of signatures then there must be a groundswell for debate and possibly change.

No one is suggesting we replace Representative Democracy with Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is simply a much needed addition to the current system and could be used sparingly maybe on one day every year. The Swiss have averaged only 3-4 referendums a year and they only have to collect 50,000 signatures with a population almost twice that of NZ.

It would seem logical, in a modern well informed society that the People would want, and have a democratic right to, more say on issues that directly affect them. People are no longer prepared to accept that those in positions of authority know what is best for them. There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Now is the time for Binding Citizens Initiated Referendums so the People can have a say on issues like the Civil Unions Bill and other contentious issues.

Back to article list