Binding Referendums Anyone?

Thousand of New Zealanders, and at least one person from Cambridge (me) participated
in the 'March for Democracy' up Queen Street

in Auckland on the 21st November. They were protesting because the government has ignored yet another referendum and they were calling for referendums to be made binding. While New Zealand is indeed a wonderful place to live, and certainly far more democratic than most countries, our democracy can always be improved.

In August of 2009, New Zealanders were faced with a citizens initiated referendum,
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New
Zealand?”. The purpose of this referendum was to repeal the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill which had been introduced to parliament by Green Party MP, Sue Bradford. Overwhelmingly, 87.4% of those who voted answered 'no'. The Taupo (Cambridge) electorate took a very strong interest in this referendum with a higher than average turnout and a higher than average percentage of 'no' voters than many other electorates. The trouble is, in New Zealand, unlike Switzerland where referendums have been in use for over one hundred and thirty years, referendums are not binding on the New Zealand government.

When the CIR Act was first being introduced there was much comment and discussion. Cabinet Minister Sir Douglas Graham said in parliament in 1993,

“The Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill gives the freedom to engage the entire nation in any topic of our choosing... any Government that fails to respect the outcome of a non-binding referendum will have to convince us at the next general election that its decision was justified. It is my belief that we will rarely witness by Parliament the rejection of a referendum result.”

The recent referendum was not the only referendum that has been ignored. In the past we have had a referendum to reduce the number of MPs to 99 with 81.47% agreeing, but the government ignored it. There have also been others. Cabinet Minister Murray McCully was quoted back in 1992 as saying,

“To those who want to step immediately to binding referenda, I say that they will
have their opportunity when the legislation is in force to express that view by the
mechanism that the bill will provide. In other words, those who wish to promote that
referenda shall be binding will be able to initiate a non-binding referendum to
demonstrate public sympathy for their view. I commend that course to them.”

Well this is exactly what is about to happen. Larry Baldock, a former MP, is proposing a new referendum to make referendums binding on the government. Whether or not Mr Baldock is successful in collecting the huge amount of signatures required to trigger this referendum remains to be seen. However, if New Zealanders want this change then this is there opportunity to get in behind the referendum process by signing Mr Baldock's petition to have a referendum, helping to collect signatures, voting and putting pressure on our politicians for change.

ENDS

This article first appeared in the Cambridge News 18/12/2009

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

CIR question approved by the Clerk

Larry Baldock has started his Campaign 4 Democracy with a new citizens initiated referendum. To help collect signatures or donate visit http://www.4democracy.co.nz/

The Kiwi Party
Press Release
17 December, 2009

Kiwi Party leader, Larry Baldock, welcomed the announcement today that the latest Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) petition has been officially approved by the Clerk of the House of Representatives - “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

Thirteen submissions had been received on an originally proposed question, “should citizens initiated referenda seeking to repeal or amend a law be binding?” In addition the Clerk of the House of Representatives received advice from the Legislative Advisory Committee. After meeting together and exchanging several emails and letters the final wording was agreed on.

"While the question does not contain the original word that would make CIRs binding, I believe the ultimate effect will be the same. I am very pleased that the object of the Question is Parliament and not the Government," said Mr Baldock.

"That is because it was Parliament and not the Government that passed the Anti-smacking law, as it was a member’s bill. It was Parliament that ignored the opposition to that Bill and it is now the overwhelming majority of the Members of Parliament that are ignoring the will of the people clearly spoken in the recent referendum, just as they have in other Citizens Initiated Referenda conducted under the CIR Act 1993.

"While we can be justifiably angry that the Prime Minister and his Government are ignoring the referendum, the fault does not rest with him alone. Each and every elected representative has the responsibility to be ‘true’ representatives of those that elected them.

"The question has become longer than I had hoped, but most will understand that any person holding the office of Clerk of the House from now on, will be very concerned that when a petition has been successful in achieving a referendum, there can be many scurrilous and unfounded attacks upon the question by its opponents.

"I personally believe the Prime Minister, leader of the Opposition and other long serving MPs acted disgracefully when they claimed the former Clerk approved a faulty question.

"I know I have the full support of the leadership of the Kiwi Party to now commence the task of collecting sufficient signatures to force a referendum. I am keen to build a strong coalition of political parties, charities, community organisations, businesses and individuals under the banner of the Campaign4Democracy.


"Prior to launching the Campaign4Democracy, we commissioned a survey to gauge the public’s response to another petition. 15% of those involved indicated they would be prepared to help collect signatures, while 60% said they would be prepared to sign.

"That amounts to a potential 450,000 collectors seeking the signatures of 1.8 million willing citizens. More than enough to achieve the 350,000 we will need to meet the required number to force a referendum.

"And this time it should be held at the General Election in 2011 and therefore not cost the taxpayer any more than the lowest amount to pay for this necessary action to preserve our precious democracy.

"A referendum on this question being held then would give the people a chance to have their say on the lack of true representation by our Parliament, and the worrying increase in the abuse of executive power by the current and recent Prime Ministers and Cabinet."

Ends

Contact
Larry Baldock
021864833

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

SENSIBLE SENTENCING TRUST FIGHTS FOR SURVIVAL

A voluntary organisation which helps victims of violent crime is fighting a legal wrangle which could deny it charitable status and threaten its future in New Zealand.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been told by the Charities Commission that it is unlikely to be granted the official status of a charity because its main purpose is political and not beneficial to the community.

The small organisation with a big public profile was set up eight years ago by Hawke’s Bay farmer Garth McVicar and his family, who saw a growing need for victims of crime to have better support and representation during court proceedings.

Despite still being run by unpaid volunteers from a small office in Napier, the organisation now has thousands of supporters across the country and has become a major voice in the debate on crime and justice.

But the Trust has become a victim of its own success and the Commission says this public role advocating for victims is not appropriate behavior for a charity.

Striking it off the charities register would threaten the Trust’s future because it would force the voluntary organisation to pay tax on the donations it received and many supporters would stop contributions because they would no longer be tax deductable.

“We have already been advised by one generous sponsor that funding for next year’s victims’ conference will stop if we are denied charitable status,” Mr. McVicar said.

“The victims who approach the Trust say this is often the only time they feel ‘normal’ because they get to spend time with other families who have lost a loved one through violent crime or had their lives changed forever by the actions of a criminal.”

The Charities Act 2005 says an organisation may advocate but cannot have a primary political purpose. However it also says that any charitable purpose relating to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or any other matter beneficial to the community qualifies.

“How is it possible that an organisation run on the smell of an oily rag by volunteers for the benefit of victims of violent crime cannot be beneficial to the community? It beggars belief and we know there will be thousands of New Zealanders out there who will be outraged if the Trust is denied charitable status,” Mr. McVicar said.

The Trust said although it undoubtedly did have a political and advocacy role, the Commission had viewed the Trust’s website and from that concluded that political advocacy was its main purpose.

“If they even spent a day with us in the office they would see how much time is spent directly supporting dozens of victims who have approached us. By representing them and their rights publicly we have attracted significant media attention but this doesn’t mean political advocacy is all we do. In fact it is a fraction of what we do.”

If the Commission turns down the Trust’s application, Mr. McVicar says the group will fight for a law change.

“Our precious time and money should be spent helping victims, not fighting for something any New Zealander with common sense can recognise. Just like victims in the justice system, we are forced to fight a David and Goliath battle which is unfair and unjust.”

ENDS

Please email all MPs & Newspapers in support of SST click here



CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Switzerland: New Muslim Minarets banned

In the latest Swiss referendum, voters initiated a new law to ban the construction of any new Muslim Minarets. For the full NZ Herald story click here

Interesting how the NZ herald seem to be running an anti referendum campaign at present. Just about all reports coming out of the NZ Herald have been negative or mostly negative. They don't seem prepared to offer both sides of the story as to why referendums are more democratic. The Herald certasinly seems to have an agenda here. Meanwhile they are happy to accept massive advertising fees from the march for Democracy's Colin Craig!

It would appear that Swiss voters have stomped their feet in regard to the growing fear around the world of extremist Muslims and this is their way of saying they don't want extremist beliefs getting a toehold in Switzerland? They obviously don't want to become multicultural. To some people this may appear racist, however, does a society have the right to decide what they will tolerate or not tolerate if it is completely incongruent with that society?

Bruno Kaufmann, from the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe, which is a transnational think-tank dedicated to research and education on the procedures and practices of modern direct democracy suggests that what is behind the referendum is ....

1. The "smart" idea of the main right-wing party to instrumentalize the
symbol of islam
2. The fears and emotions of many people in the country after years of
intense muslim immigration from former Yugoslavia
3. A current diplomatic row with Lybia
4. The feeling that a yes does not give economic disanvatages
5. But also a procedure greyzone, as the decision may not be compatible
with international law

He also says, "Basically there is a conflict in Switzerland between a pre-modern and
modern understanding and use of direct democratic procedures. The vote offers however the opportunity to discuss many things more openly
and intensively."



CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...