Referendums

Press, 29 June 1983, Page 12

Referendums

Sir,—Why could not another law be added, acknowledging that a referendum is obviously invalid as a measure of public opinion if the number of votes is below a certain figure? Similarly, a fair representation in Parliament strictly according to votes is urgently desirable, whichever party is in power, one is grateful to the Social Credit Party as the only group to provide a petition. Surely referendums, polls and petitions are the only way in which the public can make particular needs and wishes known with any sense of having notice taken of them. Of the vast, untapped reservoir of knowledge, common sense and insight of “ordinary” people, perhaps a tiny fraction reaches “the top,” and an even tinier fraction is actually used. Statements which differ from one’s own information are made about, or “on behalf of’ various groups or categories in our society; therefore one must conclude the “managers” of the country do not by any means necessarily know public opinion.—Yours, etc., N. W. MILANOVICH. June 25, 1983.

Sir,—Recently Bruce Beetham has stated his continuing support for public referendums to restore decision-making to the public. In New Zealand, I find generally that the average person is apathetic about our decision-making mechanism in Parliament The attitude of leaving it to the Government is only fostered by today’s closed doors and infrequent consultation with the ordinary New Zealand person. Introducing referendums

might encourage the public to take a more active interest in what their Government is doing and give them the opportunity to view their objections or support for the government of the day. While encouraging public participation, it would also call our members of Parliament to a more open debate over major issues, as it is not only their colleagues that they have to convince, but also the public. I feel the public should be given more opportunity of participation in, and sharing the responsibility of, running our country. — Yours, etc., M. N. GRAVESTON. June 27, 1983.

Sir,—One must agree with the editorial (June 25) that there are certain dangers in allowing the voter unlimited referendums, if it becomes democracy-run-riot. However, one must also agree with Mark Sadler who on the same page said: “Those of us who do not belong to the Establishment are getting sick of a system always run by the Establishment for the Establishment.” The editorial concludes: “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.” Unfortunately, it is precisely what its members know of public opinion which prevents the Government holding referendums; otherwise Australian public opinion would have kept its government out of the C.E.R., New Zealand public opinion would have made us a nuclear-free zone, and New Zealand would now have a democratic-ally-elected government. About 80 per cent of current members of Parliament would lose their seats, if it were not for the antediluvian first-past-the-post system. — Yours, etc., RICHARD BACH, Political executive of the New Zealand Social Credit Party. June 25, 1983.