call, and I respect that call whatever it may be, even if I don’t necessarily personally agree with it. But my personal feelings are not what I’m in Wellington for. I’m there to represent You, the Voters. And I do think, based on what people have been telling me, that I made the right call on both counts, when the questions on gay marriage and the drinking age were asked. Certainly people both from within my own Party and without have thanked me for the stand I made on both subjects. I base that stand on everything I have written and said these past ten years, the manifesto position of the Party on whose ticket I came to Parliament, and the views expressed to me in person, on the street, and in my mail and email from ordinary voters and citizens up and down the country. But I am but one Member and one vote in the Parliament, and sometimes the most contentious of issues demand a greater level of investigation and input. It concerns me deeply that the results of referenda, as they are currently practised in New Zealand, are not binding on the Government of the Day. To that end, I will shortly have a Private Member’s Bill in the ballot which will seek to redress this situation. With the blessing of my Party, my Bill will seek to make the results of Citizens’ Initiated Referenda binding upon Government, plain and simple.
In line with party policy, it will include some provisions whereby a prescribed majority of Parliament will be able to overturn certain referendum results, but only if the decision of the plebiscite is below a certain threshold; and if it is above that threshold, the Parliament will not hold a power of veto. Within that context, had the referendum on the anti-smacking Bill, for example, been held within the constraints of the BCIR Bill as I am proposing it, Parliament would not have had the option of disregarding the clearly indicated will and intention of the electorate as they did. With regard to that particular issue, 83% of New Zealand voters expressed their clear opposition to the revocation of section 59 of the Crime Act, and yet all but eight of our 121 Parliamentarians voted in favour of the change. Likewise, between 73% and 83%, depending on whose figures one chooses to believe, indicated that they wanted to retain the combat wing of the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Under my Bill, in both circumstances, Parliament would not have retained the power of a veto against the clearly expressed wishes of the People. Had the disbandment of the strike wing been the subject of a referendum, it is my belief that we would still have one. And if You The People knew that the results of referenda would be bind-
ing on Government, I further believe that more such issues would become the subject of successful electoral petitions seeking plebiscites. This system works well in Switzerland, but not so well in California. As with all laws, it falls to individual legislatures to determine which particular laws and regulations work most effectively in their own jurisdictions, and to apply them as best suits their own individual circumstances. We may be best advised to look at the Swiss model rather than the Californian one, when it comes to designing and implementing a BCIR regime for New Zealand. But the bottom line, as far as this writer – your favourite commentator, and now, also your representative – is concerned, is this; You The People hold the moral right to make the final determinations where matters of constitution and democracy are concerned. That is why I support my Party’s policy position on binding referenda, and that is why I am putting my Bill into the ballot. It is you who need to be making these decisions, and it is you who I serve. Let’s hope it gets drawn, let’s hope it gets support, and let’s hope it is the beginning of a brave and bold new era of New Zealand politics. You are, after all, worth it. Richard Prosser
Oct/Nov 2012 | INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM 9