The first experience in New Zealand of a citizens’ initiated referendum was not a happy one. It shows, however, that the direction of citizens’ referedums in the ACT has avoided much of the folly evident in the New Zealand model. The weekend vote in New Zealand was 87.3 per cent Yes to 12.7 per cent No in favour of retaining a high number of fire-fighters.
Several things went wrong. The turnout was a very low 27.7 per cent. The cost of the equivalent of $9 million was too high for the nature of the issue involved. The implementation of the result is open to interpretation, unenforceable and largely motherhood. Of course, people want more and better fire-fighters … and teachers, and police and doctors and every other service provider in the public sector. Sensible New Zealanders saw the farce and did not bother to vote, or voted No.
The Minister for Justice, Doug Graham, drew some sensible conclusions. He said the law having referendums was a good idea, but they should be reserved for conscience issues, not matters of government spending. He thought a cheaper method of voting should be found and that people should be wary before signing future referendum-triggering petitions. In New Zealand 10 per cent of voters are required before a referendum is required.
The proposals put before the ACT Legislative Assembly last year, but which have been sent to a committee, appear to have met the difficulties revealed in New Zealand. In New Zealand the referendums are not binding. Voters rightly say, why bother? They know that politicians cannot be trusted to implement the people’s will unless forced to. If they could, the very need for citizens’ initiated referendums would not exist. The ACT model was for what amounted to binding referendums.
In New Zealand all sorts of silly, time- and money-wasting motherhood proposals are allowed. Yes, we want more fire-fighters. These questions have no serious purpose other than a silly political game to embarrass a government, in this case for cutting fire-fighting services. The true aim of citizen’s referendums is to the contrary … to de-embarrass governments. It is for citizens to take issues out of the politicians’ too-hard baskets and make decisions politicians are too scared to make because some noisy, well-heeled pressure group will make life difficult at election time.
The ACT’s proposal does this because it allows only petitions for questions that can be drafted into enforceable laws. The question and the law it would enact have to be certified by an appropriate legal authority that the question reflects the law and the law is efficacious. Typically, ACT votes would likely be ones of moral or practical substance, for example, euthanasia, smoking bans or permissions, gun control and so on. Of more import, the ACT model allows for a citizens’ referendum to repeal an Act passed by the Assembly. The citizens can over-rule politicians. In such an environment politicians would be more careful.
The ACT proposal also has the advantage of usually holding referendums concurrently with elections to reduce costs.
The New Zealand experience should not be used as an argument against citizens’ referendum; it’s just that they did it badly.