THE PRESS SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1983. Asking voters to choose

Press, 25 June 1983, Page 16

THE PRESS SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1983. Asking voters to choose

Frequent use of referendums to decide important matters of public policy is an appealing prospect. It offers a compromise between government by representatives of the community, chosen at intervals of several years, and the ideal Athenian democracy of government by all citizens in session every day. The Social Credit leader, Mr Beetham, has proposed that referendums should be used more frequently in New Zealand to restore to people “the power to demonstrate their support or opposition direct, without the intermediary of the political party.” Referendums have been used infrequently in New Zealand. A poll on the sale of liquor, and on ownership of the industry, continues to be held at the same time as General Elections. The outcome is generally regarded as a foregone conclusion, but the poll serves to remind the community and the liquor industry that a significant proportion of New Zealanders are unhappy with the way the industry conducts its affairs. When electors go out to vote for members of Parliament, as well as in a referendum, most take the trouble to vote. In 1981, for instance, 91 per cent of electors voted for members of Parliament; 86 per cent voted in the licensing poll. When a referendum is held by itself, the interest of voters is smaller. In the two referendums held together in September, 1967, on the questions of. the opening hours of hotels and the length of time between General Elections, 71 per cent of voters took part. Even this figure is much higher than the turn-out of voters in Switzerland, the notable example of a country where referendums are held frequently on a variety of issues. There, for instance, 42 per cent of voters took part in a poll in 1981 on whether car seats should be compulsory. For a vote in 1980 on whether women should have equal rights and opportunities with men, only 33.5 per cent of Swiss bothered to vote. Only time would show whether, in New Zealand, interest in referendums would decline. The risk must be great, however, that a rather small number of citizens could end up making important decisions. A referendum is not, generally, like an opinion poll. It is regarded as binding on a government for an indefinite period. To take a matter close to Social Credit’s heart, a referendum might he held to decide whether New Zealand should change to a system of voting by proportional representation, so that the membership of Parliament might better reflect the strength of

the Social Credit vote. Proportional representation might well be approved; but, if it were not, the matter could be regarded as closed for a long time. Any prospect of its introduction by agreement among politicians would be lost. Referendums are also a crude tool with which to make decisions. The community might express a general preference for proportional representation as a system of voting; the detail would still have to be decided in some other way and could make a great deal of difference to the application of the system. Some important questions do not lend themselves to the “yes — no” choice of a referendum. A referendum could decide whether New Zealanders approved of abortions, but hardly the circumstances in which abortions could be performed. A referendum can also bind a government to what may turn out to be a damaging course and penalise a minority point of view — even a substantial minority — in the process. Those who favour referendums might ponder what the outcome here would be to a vote similar to that held in Switzerland in 1981 to decide if immigrant workers should be given more civil rights. The proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority, but only 39 per cent of Swiss bothered to vote. The interests of minorities may well be better protected by Parliamentary debate, decision, and compromise. Perhaps the strongest argument against the frequent use of referendums is that by thrusting responsibility for decisions on to the community, politicians can evade their responsibility to seek the compromises, or to take account of the detail of events and proposals, that are a good part of the proper business of politics. When politicians make a decision that the community believes is wrong, elections provide an opportunity to punish the politicians. When a majority of those who bother to vote on a particular day in a referendum make a bad decision, they cannot be thrown out and a new lot of voters installed in their place. Attitudes and ideas change; events make them change, sometimes very quickly. Stable, consistent, and fair laws are not necessarily made by the attitudes and ideas of a majority on a particular day, or in the heat of the moment. The slower, more refining processes of Parliament, guided by what its members should know of public opinion, have much to commend them against the referendum.