Referendums in New Zealand

Referendums in New Zealand

Government Essay

Name: Ammar Almerabi

A referendum is a means of exercising direct democracy in a nation. This form of exercising direct democracy can be traced back to the Greek city-state of Athens in the 5th century BC, which was the first to utilize referendum to make sound decisions on matters. A referendum is a direct public vote by registered voters on measures that have been proposed by the legislature or parliament. The whole electorate is asked to vote on a given proposal, and a proposed law can be accepted, rejected, or repealed depending on the popular vote. The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences between a biding and non-binding (indicative) referendum, as well as their advantages and disadvantages. Subsequently, it calls for a binding referendum in choosing a new flag for New Zealand. The paper begins from the premise that a binding referendum should be applied when choosing a new flag as it will lead to the automatic implementation of the outcome of a long-standing, controversial matter.

In New Zealand, referendums are only held occasionally with an aim to get people to vote on particular public policy issues. Referendums are either binding or non-binding. A binding referendum is one that requires the result to be implemented. More often than not, binding referendums are initiated by the government. A binding referendum is conducted to make decisions on matters relating to “reserved provisions” such as three-year Parliamentary term and provisions governing minimum voting age. It requires parliament to pass a special legislation prior to being conducted and highlight the details of the alternative system(s) being considered (New Zealand Parliament, n.d).

A non-binding referendum is one that does not require the result to be implemented; the views of the electorates are observed, but are not acted upon by legislators and other government stakeholders. Non-binding referendums are triggered by a large, successful public petition in accordance with the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act of 1993 (Electoral Commission, 2014). These are the citizen-initiated referendums. They do not have provisions that will automatically effect amendments to the law if the referendums are held (New Zealand Parliament, n.d). In most cases, they are held after the collection of sufficient signatures to a petition and do not change the law. They do not bind anyone, but only influence or persuade the government to act upon an issue.

One of the advantages of a binding referendum is that it is an implicit electoral process with automatic legislative change(s) as the resultant outcome (Ministry of Justice, n.d). In this sense, the participants are sure that the outcome of the process will be implemented. In addition, binding referendums make the voters feel that they have more efficacies with the decision to be made. They are called to participate in a democratic process that will make amendments to government legislation or procedures, meaning they matter. This, in turn, may increase engagement and turnout of voters while creating an inclusive society whereby any person eligible to vote is encouraged to do so. Binding referendums are economical; they not a waste of money per se, as many editorials in New Zealand newspapers postulate (Baron, 2014). Money is spent in the whole electoral process and thereafter, the outcome is implemented. On a negative note, if the government wishes to overturn the result of a binding referendum due to questions surrounding the outcome then it would have to pass a primary legislation.

A non-binding referendum gives voters the opportunity to instigate amendments or signal preferences to legislators outside the electoral cycle (New Zealand Parliament, n.d). This gives electorates a feeling of self-worth. Further, if any case of legitimacy, clarity or neutrality emanates from the process of the referendum or its outcome, a non-binding option offers the flexibility to address the matter (Ministry of Justice, n.d). However, if the referendum outcome will be subjected to government discretion, then the process risks low turnout and lack of public trust and acceptance (Ministry of Justice, n.d).

Additionally, a non-binding referendum raises the question of why it should be carried out in the first place if the outcome will not be implemented (Select Committee on the Constitution, 2010). It is merely a consultative or advisory process; the government or legislature is given the mandate to interpret its outcome and may even choose to ignore the results.  For instance, the Labour and National Governments ignored many wishes of the people of New Zealand after they were communicated through citizen-initiated referendums. A non-binding referendum is like an expensive opinion poll (Select Committee on the Constitution, 2010); it is only advisory, yet costs a lot of money.

New Zealand has a long history of debates surrounding a change of the national flag. For several decades, different individuals and agencies have proposed many alternative designs. However, there is no consensus up to date in the design that can best replace the current flag. In this regard, the government has called for a referendum to make a decision on the design that shall be adopted. The most suitable type of referendum for building consensus on this issue is a binding referendum.

The flag is a symbol of national unity. In the light of the role it plays in uniting the people of New Zealand, then matters to change its design ought to arise from the government. The government needs to consider all the options that have been suggested, and then initiate a referendum that will result in choosing a new flag that best reflects the modern, independent nation that new Zealand is (Chapman, 2005), or decide to retain the current one. While people may fail to engage in a non-binding referendum because their vote “will not make a difference” (Newman, 2014), a binding referendum would attract many voters because they know their vote counts and will make a difference, should the referendum take place.

        According to the Ministry of Justice (n.d), a binding referendum does not have the risk of public disengagement and lack of acceptance. Since it does not demonstrate any ambiguity or doubt that the outcome will be implemented, then this is the best type of referendum to use when choosing a new flag. It encourages participation; many voters are likely to turn out on the day of this electoral process and vote in a new design or decide to retain the current flag with their vote unlike in a non-binding referendum. In the words of Professor Gallagher, “an indicative referendum is little more than an expensive opinion poll…” (Select Committee on the Constitution, 2010, p. 44). In this regard, voters may fail to participate since it only gathers opinions.