DTNZ: ‘Freedom’ launches - New political movement calls for historic shift to direct democracy

After 14 years of advocating for New Zealanders’ rights and “people power”, the NZ Outdoors & Freedom Party is entering a new era and has streamlined its name to a single, sharp, and unmistakable name: ‘freedom’.

The rebrand marks a strategic pivot toward a fundamental “paradigm upgrade” for New Zealand’s political system: the transition from a traditional parliamentary model to a system of Direct Democracy.

NZCPR Weekly: Race-Based Democracy Opposed

Dear NZCPR Reader,   

This week we look into the misrepresentations being used to drive a campaign to remove direct democracy petition rights from local government electoral law, our NZCPR Guest Commentator Michael Coote exposes the underlying agenda of Local Government New Zealand, and our poll asks whether you believe direct democracy petition rights in the Local Electoral Act should be retained.

*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.  

Steve Baron: To vote or not to vote… that is the question

I’d like to tell you about Ben. I first met Ben at Victoria University when I attended there in 2012 as a mature post graduate student. Ben had just finished his undergraduate degree and was doing the same political science post graduate paper as me. Ben is an impressive young man with a sharp intellect. He’s not a flashy know-it-all character, just determined, down to earth and like most politically minded people he wants to make a difference. Ben’s all excited now the election date has been announced and he is encouraging all of his Facebook friends to get out and vote. Being a political party zealot (member), he naturally expected everyone to vote for ‘his’ political party!

Statistics show that 25% of New Zealanders didn’t bother to vote at the last election. I suspect there will be even more who don’t bother this year, as turnout rates drop almost every election. 

Steve Baron: People speak but aren't heard

Ain’t democracy wonderful, we’ve just finished deciding who will run our local council and now we get to decide if the government should sell up to 49% of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand, in a referendum?

Well, no actually… those politicians we elected in 2011 were evidently sprinkled with magical pixie dust which makes them far more intelligent than the rest of us. They have the power to ignore any citizens’ initiated referendum they choose—something they have done on every single citizens’ initiated referendum that has ever been held. Elitism has triumphed over collective wisdom—the Prime Minister and a dozen or so Cabinet Ministers know better than 3 million New Zealand voters.

Steve Baron: Strengthening Our Democracy

Having an interest or passion for politics is rather peculiar in this day and age. It is not
uncommon at the first signs of a political discussion for the person standing in front of me
to have an immediate attack of ocular revulsion (eye rolling). I have been campaigning for binding referendums since 2003, but just recently I looked at some old newspaper clippings from 1985 and realised I was even talking about referendums way back then.

What has always concerned me is the real lack of checks and balances in our political system.

Steve Baron: Direct Democracy: Some Major Objections and Responses

Even though direct democracy has been successfully used in Switzerland for over 140 years, it still has its critics. Many see it as a threat to representative democracy and something to be avoided at any cost. There have often been calls for the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 to be repealed. Former Prime Minister and law professor, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, when discussing the CIR Act in his book Bridled Power said:

The Act should be repealed. It appears to offer a chance for citizens to influence policy but in substance that opportunity is like a mirage in the desert. Referenda should be reserved for those few and important issues of constitution and conscience that should be bound by the people's voice.

Steve Baron: Direct democracy in New Zealand

Direct democracy in New Zealand continues to be a work in progress. In 1893 New Zealand debated having a constitutional framework similar to Switzerland. Although never enacted, a Referendum Bill was introduced to parliament. However, the Bill only provided for non-binding, government-controlled referendums—in other words, plebiscites. This Bill was also re-introduced again in 1918 but failed. A statutory provision for constitutional referendums is also provided for under the Electoral Act 1993, section 268. This statutory provision is singularly entrenched which means that it can only be amended or repealed if passed by a 75% majority of all MPs, or by a majority in a referendum. Then, in 1984, Social Credit MP Garry Knapp introduced the Popular Initiatives Bill which would have enabled 100,000 voters to trigger a non-binding referendum. The Bill was deferred pending a Royal Commission on the Electoral System.

The Citizens' Initiated Referenda Act 1993 came about mostly due to broken election promises by the 1984 Labour government. These radical policies for the times caused immense frustration and anger amongst New Zealanders. People at that time felt they had been deceived. According to a number of academic surveys, MPs were less respected than ever before. As a nation we had lost confidence in our political representatives.

Steve Baron: What is direct democracy?

Direct democracy is a concept that a growing number of citizens and states around the world are exploring and embracing. There are 190 million people in Switzerland, Italy, Liechtenstein and 24 States in the USA who now embrace the referendum system. 70% of the US population now live in a state that gives them the right to vote on initiatives and referendums.

 To many people, direct democracy can mean different things. Some picture the classical/pre-modern (Athens) style of direct democracy where citizens meet in the town square and decide on important issues. Others see it as an opportunity to rid the world of devious self-serving politicians, where we can all sit at home and make all necessary political decisions via our laptops. Whatever it means to you, direct democracy has certainly become a much discussed topic over the last twenty or so years even though it has had numerous critics.

Roger Kerr: Anyone for Another Vote?

New Zealanders don't get to vote very often about parliamentary matters.  On 26 November we get to vote in the general election and on the future of MMP.  We can be thankful that we live in a country with such firmly rooted democratic freedoms.

Yet some countries, such as Switzerland and the United States, provide greater opportunities for voters to participate directly in democracy than occurs in New Zealand.  Might New Zealanders be better off with more of a direct say in key parliamentary decisions?

Steve Baron: Governments & Governance - Where is the power?

The world is changing — political power is changing. Sovereign governments around the world are persistently signing their countries up to international agreements, laws and conventions, usually with the intention to strengthen human rights, improve free trade due to the increase in global trade, quell armed conflict and to address environmental concerns.

The question for New Zealanders to consider though — is the government (and therefore New Zealanders) handing over power to an unknown group of outsiders who then control our destinies? Is there cause for concern or is this just the way the world is going and we simply need to jump on for the ride as this international governance is simply a new process or new method of governing?

Steve Baron: New Zealand's Upper House of Parliament: Time to re-establish?

When the National Party came to power in 1949 it implemented an election policy to have the Upper House of parliament removed and in 1951 it ceased to exist—New Zealand became a unicameral parliament. This came about because during the first Labour government of 1935-1949, the Upper House had become markedly supportive of Labour and therefore seemed superfluous.

There was little opposition to its removal because Prime Minister Sidney Holland had promised to search for a better type of Upper House. This never eventuated because of a perceived ineffectiveness of the Upper House and over time other parliamentary tools were initiated to constrain the abuse of power (at least to some extent).