The Facts About Binding Referendums
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the essence of the Swiss system?
- That the electors can, if they feel strongly enough, either reject unwanted legislation by a referendum, put forward their own proposed legislation, this to be put to a referendum, or recall a Member of Parliament not regarded as satisfactory.
- What is a specific example of how the Swiss system works?
- For many years the Swiss never joined the United Nations. Under the Swiss Constitution it is mandatory for the Federal government, following a 1977 change to the Swiss Constitution to submit any proposed international agreement of indefinite duration to a referendum of the people. The Swiss electors decisively rejected the proposal to join the United Nations, approximately 70 percent of the electors voting against it. They had a real say about the future of their country. They have since decided to join the united Nations as they felt the time was right. At present New Zealanders have no mechanism by which they can prevent Government making international agreements of far-reaching implications.
- What type of issues is it envisaged could be taken up by electors if they had Binding Referendums?
- That's not for us to say, it's whatever New Zealanders think are important but some things come to mind such as Immigration, Euthanasia, Police numbers, Prostitution, the Privy Council, Government funding of minority groups etc etc.
- Would the party system be abolished with the introduction of Binding Referendums?
- Not at all. Binding referendums are designed to complement to the existing parliamentary system. But the dictatorship of the party machine would be weakened. There are a number of parties in Switzerland but there is greater co-operation between them than is the case in New Zealand. With binding Referendums operating the Member of Parliament who genuinely wishes to represent the wishes of his electors, feels more independent. In Switzerland, the home of the Initiative Referendum system, most of the legislation enacted originates with parliament. Under the Swiss system, the politicians are much more conscious of the power of their electors - even, if necessary, to petition for their recall from Parliament - and therefore seek to anticipate that which electors may require.
- We already have an elected representation through Members of Parliament, why not leave it up to those we elect to make the decisions?
- We may have an elected democracy but is it truly representative of what we want? Most people fail to realise that this Government and every Government before it is actually run by the Executive Committee of the Party in power, who then tells it's Ministers and MP's what the Party line is going to be. And look out any MP who won't follow the Party line. Governments can also easily get out of touch with the public. This is not true democracy or true representation. Some might say all we have is an elected dictatorship. Just because someone votes for a Party or a Government every three years does not mean they agree with everything that Party/Government wants to do. Binding referendums are a safe-guard. We desperately need checks and balances to make the politicians accountable.
- Would the Government be obliged to abide by whatever the decision of the electors may be?
- That is correct but if 75% of all Members of Parliament can agree, (see Our Objectives) then they have the right to Veto the referendum. It would have to be a very extreme referendum for this to happen and as New Zealanders are not an extreme people we find it highly unlikely this situation would ever arise. If it were to become abuse by politicians then we feel there would be even stronger grounds for binding referendums.
- Would Binding Referendums mean having referendums too frequently?
- Referendums would only happen when electors felt very strong about something because the signatures of 10% of those on the electoral roll must be collected before a referendum could be held. 10% is a huge hurdle, more than necessary we believe, but it is a very strong safeguard. We believe there would be an uplift in public morale and a much healthier community spirit, with a collapse in many of the present divisions in society, as people realised that they could have a real and effective say in their own affairs. Freedom is something which requires constant cultivation. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". The community would be able to concentrate upon issues instead of the diversions of political personality battles. The only alternative to the adoption of the principals of binding Referendums is a continued sinking in the bog lands of rigid party politics with the end result the complete totalitarian State.
- Can referendums be worded in such a way to elicit a certain response and get voters to support something that isn't good for New Zealand?
- In Our Objectives you will see that we have suggested the instigation of a professional Referendum Panel to ensure this does not happen.
- Could radical minorities disrupt society by forcing referendums?
- In New Zealand present CIR legislation (which is not binding on Government) requires 10% of registered voters to sign a petition to trigger a referendum. Anyone with any experience of obtaining signatures to petitions knows that if 10 percent of the electorate can be organised to sign a petition, there is a groundswell for debate and change. But the real test comes when an issue must be voted on by the total electorate.
- Could minority groups such as Maori be disadvantaged?
- That would mean New Zealanders would have to be unreasonable and I don't believe they are. I doubt very much if they would discriminate against old people or Maori people or religious people and there is no historical evidence of this happening. In fact in Australia when they had a referendum to reform the constitution in relation to the position of Aboriginal and the referendum attracted a massive 90.8 percent, one of the highest affirmative referendums ever recorded in a democracy.
In California a state Senator launched a campaign to prohibit homosexuals from teaching in public schools but it was soundly defeated. Australian voters also rejected a referendum proposal to give the federal parliament power to legislate against the Communist Party. This was in 1951 when Stalin's terror was at it's height in Russia.
- Could Binding Referendums lead to demagoguery and mob rule?
- There is absolutely no historical evidence to prove this has ever happened. Binding Referendums are in fact a definite safeguard against a demagogue gaining power. There have been a number of demagogues in countries dominated by party politics, but none in Switzerland. People only turn to demagogues, as Germans turned to Hitler, when they are fearful and desperate. Hitler had relatively little impact on the German-speaking Swiss.
- Aren't referendums expensive?
- This has proved no problem in Switzerland where provision is made for any referendum polls to be held, if required, every three months. Financial costs are higher in Switzerland because brochures and ballot papers must be published in three major languages - German, French & Italian. If New Zealanders are not willing to pay a few dollars a year to finance referendums, then they are not interested in controlling their own affairs. This suggestion is an insult to the people. It has been demonstrated that where people can use the referendum system, the financial benefits far outweigh the costs of conducting referendums, some of which could be conducted at the same time as elections. On top of that as electronic mediums such as the internet progress the cost of holding referendums or general elections will reduce.
- Are the voters competent enough to make important decisions
- In an electronic society information is easily disseminated via the internet and it could also be made a requirement by law to supply voters with the pros and cons given constructively prior to the referendum with ample time for public debate which would naturally happen once New Zealanders knew their vote counted and would be acted upon. History has proven that once people are given responsibility they act responsible. It wasn't all that long ago that women were considered not intelligent enough to have the vote. Now we have a female Prime Minister!
- Won't those with the most money along with the media influence the outcome of a referendum?
- Not at all and history has proven that. In fact there are many examples where heavy spending on campaign advertising, especially if it seeks to use last minute slogans and smear campaigns often rebounds on it's authors! Voters become very sceptical. In California between 1972 and 1976, six of the eight measures on which advocates spent more than the opponents were defeated. For all sixteen measures from 1972 to 1976 the side spending the most money was successful in only eight instances. On the other hand the opponents of liberalising marijuana spent only $5,000 but prevailed over supporters who outlaid $214,000.
- Wouldn't the public act irresponsible and support referendums that promised short term benefits?
- Many of the opponents of binding Referendums point to Proposition 13 in California saying the people are not equipped to make responsible decisions on matters of taxation and government spending but they do not tell the whole story. The forget to tell you that property taxes had risen steadily for a period of five years even though the Californian government had amassed a surplus of over five billion dollars! Opponents also forget to tell you that Proposition 9 which would have halved state income taxes was defeated by a majority of 2 to 1. In Switzerland they had a referendum to spend money to overhaul their roading system. The referendum failed as the people wanted to spend money on hospitals first. So the hospitals were done then they had another referendum to spend the money on the roads and it was successful.
- How can Binding Referendums be implemented?
- It has to be fostered by a grassroots movement. Only when the public demand becomes strong enough will the principle be adopted by politicians. If present politicians will not pledge to work to introduce the principles, or permit the electors to decide by referendum whether or not they want to have the principles implemented, they will have to be replaced by others who will. There are no short-cuts to success; hard work is required by dedicated people with the use of the type of innovations developed by pioneers of New Zealand.
