I doubt that New Zealand is a democracy in anything but name – which is not ‘Aotearoa’, by the way – and I question whether Sir Geoffrey is participating to make it one.
The Shorter Oxford has sovereignty as “Supremacy in respect of power or rank; supreme authority.” The only possible source of power (the ability to do something) and hence authority (the power to influence others) is We the people as the agents who built and sustain the country. It is, by its nature and genesis, our country.
We the people should, therefore, have the power to decide the direction of our country and it is claimed that occurs by means of ‘democracy’. The Shorter Oxford has democracy as “Government by the people; a form of government in which the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives”.
Sir Geoffrey points out (p. 198) that “No two democracies are the same. New Zealand has a particular form of democracy. It is not a direct democracy in which all people decide upon all policy decisions: that is impractical and unrealistic. We have a representative democracy, involving general elections every three years.”
Both Sir Geoffrey and the dictionary identify the requirement for elections to give the people a voice in the exercise of power, but the dictionary also allows for the role of referenda as a direct way for the people to exercise their power. Sir Geoffrey avoids discussing ‘referenda’ throughout his book and it is not listed in the Index. Instead, he says (p. 251) “the most important need is to reduce the power of the executive (that is, Cabinet) by improving the accountability of ministers to the House of Representatives”; that is, our elected representatives.
However, our choice of representatives is limited.
The power of our vote is significantly limited because not only can we not vote on all individual policy decisions, which is impractical and unrealistic as Sir Geoffrey says, but we also cannot vote for whomsoever we like to represent us in making those decisions. For electorate MPs, we can only vote for candidates selected by political parties and we do not directly vote for particular list MPs who are also selected and ranked by the parties.
Sir Geoffrey points out (p. 195) that political parties “select candidates to represent their party in general elections [and] they decide the policies upon which the party will campaign at election time.” Those policies are not individually selected by the people, but they are the policies for which an elected Government could be held accountable.
There are also at least three further factors of constitutional significance which Sir Geoffrey does not consider in his book but which usurp the power of our representative Parliament and hence reduce our voting power:
1. The judiciary are increasingly making laws rather than applying laws as intended by our Parliament; for example, the recent judgments on coastal and waterways provisions.
2. Government is increasingly giving effect to Maori tikanga and sharing the power they presume we have vested in them with the Maori Iwis which has not been agreed by us and is outside of our democratic purview.
3. Government is increasingly giving consideration to globalist institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the Fabian Society, who we do not vote for. Sir Geoffrey claims (p. 198) that factors contributing to a widespread view that New Zealand is in a state of decline include “a break-down of the rules based on the system of international law and the authority of the United Nations”.
We the people have not voted in an election or a referendum to vest power in the judiciary to make laws, for Parliament to share their power with the Iwis, to give force to international laws or to grant authority to the United Nations.
If Sir Geoffrey believes the people should be in charge, he should specify that the above reductions to our power are removed. Nevertheless, he proposes the following 12 salient parliamentary reforms, drawn from the chapters of his book (pp. 56-63, 251-3). However, they do not address the above restrictions to our sovereign power.
1. Increase the number of MPs in Parliament from 123 to 150-180.
2. More considered lawmaking, less urgency, limited amounts of legislation
3. An increase in the Parliamentary term from 3 years to 4.
4. Reform of the select committee system to improve scrutiny.
5. Compulsory voting in general elections.
6. Lower the voting age to 16.
7. More civics education in schools.
8. Appointment of the Speaker of the House by secret ballot.
9. Reform of the Official Information Act 1982.
10. Limit the amount individuals can donate to political parties.
12. Public servants to provide advice on legislation and make that advice public.
Furthermore, Sir Geoffrey has himself been instrumental in reducing our democratic power. He was the chief architect of the Constitution Act 1986 (here <https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html> ). By that Act, Parliament conferred sovereignty on itself without an expressed mandate from the people. Sir Geoffery writes (p. 49), “As the New Zealand Cabinet Manual 2023 puts it (at 3), the King reigns, ‘but the Government rules so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives’.” However, if the people were in charge, to be democratically valid, the Constitution Act 1986 should have been passed by a referendum, or not as the case may be.
Sir Geoffrey’s 12 recommendations, including those for public awareness and participation, would not put We the people in charge.
A Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand
Sir Geoffrey writes (p. 71), “I have spoken many times before of the need for a constitution in this country.” In 2016, Sir Geoffrey and Andrew Butler had published A Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand which gives an insight into Sir Geoffrey’s intentions. At Section 115 “Commencement”, they say it would need to be passed by referendum, which suggests that Sir Geoffrey was also aware of the applicability of a referendum to the Constitution Act 1986.
Palmer and Butler’s Constitution has further issues which limit our sovereign power.
1) At Section 116 (p. 75) “Entrenchment and amendment” their Constitution says:
(1) No article or part of this Constitution may be repealed or amended following the commencement of this Constitution unless the proposal for the repeal or amendment:
(a) is contained in an Act of Parliament that has been passed by a majority of 75 per cent of all members of the House of Representatives:
(b) is contained in the Act of Parliament that has been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors eligible to vote.
It is unclear to me whether this requires (a) OR (b) or (a) AND (b): part (b) refers to “the Act of Parliament”, which presumably refers to the same Act of Parliament of part (a). Palmer and Butler subsequently claim (p. 226) “the Constitution provides mechanisms for its amendment by the people through referendum or by a supermajority (75 per cent) of MPs”, but I wonder if a judge would see it that way.
Nevertheless, Section 116 does not provide for the people to initiate a referendum and we have had the lesson of the Treaty Principles Bill which showed that Parliament can refuse to give us one. Hence, they want to entrench their Constitution which reduces the ability of the people to make future changes through their representative Parliament.
At present, the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 (here <https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0101/latest/DLM317193.html> ) requires 10% of our 3.5 million eligible voters (as at 2020) or 350,000 signatures to initiate a referendum, which is a high hurdle. Switzerland, for example, requires 100,000 signatures and has 5.6 million registered voters (as at 2025, here <https://switzerlandtimes.ch/swiss-votes-initiatives-and-referenda-a-guide/> ). Switzerland has had 693 referenda since 1848 with 48% accepted, and about 10 per year since 1991. Moreover, the organisers of a New Zealand CIR petition can spend no more than $50,000 promoting their petition and gathering signatures.
New Zealand has had 5 Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) since 1994, the first four of them passed and the results of all of them were largely ignored by Parliament (here <https://teara.govt.nz/en/referendums/page-6> ). One of those that passed was to reduce the size of the House of Representatives to 99; recall that Sir Geoffrey’s first recommendation above is to “Increase the number of MPs in Parliament from 123 to 150-180”. Te Ara concludes (here <https://teara.govt.nz/en/referendums/page-6> ), “it is likely that these referendums will remain little more than sideshows to the realities of government and politics in New Zealand.”
Parliament have demonstrated they will not take direction from We the people.
2) New Zealand has had 3 Constitutional referenda initiated by Parliament (here <https://teara.govt.nz/en/referendums/page-5> ). One was in 1993 to change from FPP to MMP. The other two, in 1967 and 1990, were to increase the Parliamentary term from 3 years to 4 and both failed.
However, Section 28 of Palmer and Butler’s 2016 proposed Constitution is for a “Fixed four-year parliamentary term”. Furthermore, Sir Geoffrey’s third recommendation above is still pushing for “An increase in the Parliamentary term from 3 years to 4.”
However, the less often we vote the less voting power we have.
Consider the present plight of the British people with their five-year election cycle: they have recently voted in Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour Government, their country is bankrupt and being overrun, the polls indicate they would now prefer Nigel Farage and the Reform party, and their next election is not until 2029. They must be wishing they had more voting power with elections every two years.
Sir Geoffrey has also demonstrated he will not take direction from We the people.
3) Section 3 of the Palmer and Butler Constitution reads, “Source and exercise of governmental powers. (1) All powers of government vested in the State, legislative, executive and judicial, derive from the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.”
However, Section 1 says, “Constitution is supreme. Where there is an inconsistency between any law and any provision of this Constitution, the provision of this Constitution prevails.” That is, their Constitution trumps laws made by our representative Parliament. Furthermore, Section 61(4) says, “The courts and tribunals are independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law, which they must apply independently, impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.” Hence, the courts are not under the control of our sovereign power as in Section 3(1) above.
The judiciary, and not our Parliament, would rule the country in accordance with a constitution entrenched by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Again, this reduces the power of our representative Parliament and with it our democratic voting power.
Note that they also, in passing, took the liberty to make the State the successor of the Crown (s4) and to change the name of the country to the A-word (s2). I find it curious that Sir Geoffrey never tires of insisting that we behave within the bounds of his rule of law, but that he himself delights in disrespecting our expressed wishes and the traditional norms of our colonial society.
The people would not be in charge under Sir Geoffrey’s proposed Constitution.
Sir Geoffrey has no intention of letting us anywhere near the levers of power. They are for the ruling class to manipulate; namely, the MPs selected by the political parties and the independent judiciary with their LLBs and their permed wigs.
Sir Geoffrey is trying to sell us on believing that our country will come right by tweaking the system with his 12 recommendations.
How to Save Democracy
To put the people in charge to save democracy, as Sir Geoffrey contends, We the people of New Zealand should be empowered to determine the direction of our nation. We would then be responsible for the consequences of our decisions which would in turn condition us to make optimum choices. That is Behaviourism 101 <https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/barrie-davis-behaviourism-101.html> , which has been written into our genetics by evolution. Trying to hold Parliament accountable with procedures does not have the same compelling effect.
There are two things which need to be legislated to empower us:
1. Sovereignty
It must be recognised that We the people are the sovereign power of this country. Note that I am talking facts here, not rules. All you need do is to follow the money back to its source as the token of our labour. The tax which the Government takes can be traced to the productivity of We the people. We produce the goods and services, and so the wealth and hence the power is from us, and we should be recognized for that. Failing that, Government should demonstrate where else they get their power. The only other possibility is the police or the armed forces, or the implicit threat of it.
It must be legislated that sovereignty rests in We the people. Furthermore, Parliament should seek our agreement by referendum that We the people vest our sovereignty in the Crown in Parliament for a term of three years, subject to an election, and referenda during the term.
That could be done in the Constitution Act (here <https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html> ) by writing something like:
3 Exercise of the sovereignty of the people
(1) The sovereignty of New Zealand lies in the people of New Zealand.
(2) The people of New Zealand vest their sovereignty in the Crown in Parliament for a term of three years. At the end of the term sovereignty returns to the people.
It should be born in mind that the judiciary are public servants and that the purpose of the judiciary must also fall within our democratic purview. Part 4 of the Constitution Act, “The Judiciary”, should also be revised to include that their judgments comply with the intent of the legislation of our representative Parliament. We must not have any loose wheels within our Government.
2. Referenda
New Zealand does not presently have an effective mechanism for referenda. The use of referenda should be significantly increased in New Zealand. Several European countries use referenda more than New Zealand including Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, and Ireland.
We could consider an arrangement something like that of Switzerland (here <https://switzerlandtimes.ch/swiss-votes-initiatives-and-referenda-a-guide/> ). Voter participation rates are typically between 40% of 50%. The process is automated and simple: Voting forms automatically appear in mailboxes well ahead of polling day and the forms are simple to fill out and post. There was a 78.7% participation in 1992 when the Swiss were asked whether Switzerland should join the EU, and 50.3% voted not to join.
There are three kinds of referenda in Switzerland: mandatory referenda, optional referenda and popular initiatives.
1) A mandatory referendum is typically required when parliament wishes to modify the constitution. Since 1848 there have been 242 such votes and 73% of them have been accepted.
2) An optional referendum takes place when 50,000 signatures are collected to oppose a law introduced by Parliament. Since 1848 there have been 215 of these and 58% of them have been accepted.
3) A popular initiative (or citizens-initiated referendum) to change the constitution requires 100,000 signatures to be collected. Since 1848 there have been 236 such votes, but only 11% of them have been accepted.
Referenda should be the primary, direct means for We the people to inform Parliament of the desires we have for changing our country. Elections are a relatively weak, indirect means.
Conclusion
Whereas our democratic power is already slight, Sir Geoffrey wants to limit it still further with a written Constitution and a dozen tweaks, and then claim that we are in charge. Rather than giving us the power that goes with the responsibility for our behaviour, Sir Geoffrey is trying to impose his will on us ad nauseam.
Instead, we should put our trust in future generations of New Zealanders to govern their country as they see fit. It will be their country to lose, just as it is presently ours. Only by accepting the consequences of our behaviour can we optimally govern ourselves through a democratic system of representative and responsible government.
But until our Parliament and the judiciary become team players, we will not be in a position to make New Zealand great again. We the people are sovereign and it cannot work while they are subverting us, as above.
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
No comments:
Post a Comment