The Independent Australian
a politically incorrect magazine of ideas and comment outside the mainstream
CITIZEN INITIATED REFERENDA
We vote every election for a party with a mixture of policies which are
mostly not very specific. After election the government does what it
considers expedient. We can’t force action on a specific issue about
which we feel strongly. Even worse, there may be bipartisan agreement
between the major parties against our view, so we have no influence
except by a protest vote for a minor party.
Joining a political party won’t do much good. Parties are run by cliques and factions and ordinary members get no chance to influence the outcomes.
The only way to force the parliamentarians to act is via Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR). There are good books an the subject - Professor Geoffrey de Q. Walker's The People's Law (1987), or the late Professor Paddy O'Brien's The People's Case (1995). The South Australian Constitutional Convention (SACC) website still exists (www.constitutionalconvention.SA.gov.au) and a comprehensive summary in the Discussion paper can be downloaded. The following précis is from TIA Issue 1, Summer 2003.
What is CIR?
CIR is a form of direct democracy in which a given minimum number or percentage of voters has the power to require a referendum to be taken on a given issue without the approval of the Parliament. It has two essential characteristics:
• the people have the power, by petition, to compel the holding of a referendum on whether a particular law should be enacted or repealed;
• the Government and the Parliament are bound by the result of such a referendum.
Such referenda are distinct from the current system where only the Government can initiate a proposal and normally only does so when it is necessary under the Constitution to make the proposal valid.
Direct legislation by the people was first introduced at the national level in Switzerland in 1874 and has since been adopted in 26 States of the USA. Since the 1970s, it has also been used in Italy. It now also operates in all German States and nationally in Russia. It also operates at a local level in Canada and Italy.
In one extreme version (not being promoted in Australia) petitioners can call for removal of the government and fresh elections. This happened recently in California, where an unpopular Governor was removed at the subsequent poll. Arnold Schwartzneggar was elected instead.
The wishes of the people for a change were met, whether or not they made the right decision on the replacement is another matter.
CIR may be direct or indirect.
Direct initiative requires that the proposed measure be placed on the ballot paper for submission to voters without any action or intervention by Parliament. This form exists in 16 US States and was the basis of a proposal in Queensland in 1998. {Does anybody know anything about this? If so, please let us know]
Indirect initiative provides that the once the petition is presented, the Parliament has a specific time in which to enact the measure. If it refuses or fails to do so, then the proposal is submitted to the voters for their verdict. In the conditionally prescriptive version the Government may call a general election instead.
The arguments for and against
The main arguments supporting CIR deal with making Parliament responsive to the wishes of the people, but there are some interesting extras. Thus Parliamentarians can say to pressure groups who might target them as individuals - ‘put your efforts into a CIR petition’. CIR would also make citizens more politically aware and help counteract cynicism and apathy. Some quotes:
‘Under CIR, the people feel that they remain basically in charge of their own laws no matter what party is in power. This eliminates the feelings of fear, powerlessness and vulnerability that can lead some people to support extremist political movements’.
‘The arguments raised against CIR are largely theoretical and deliberately ignore actual experience with CIR overseas. Despite scaremongering by CIR’s opponents, in no State or country in which CIR exists, has it been used to make laws oppressing minorities, persecuting trade unions, abolishing necessary taxes or introducing barbaric punishments. Switzerland and California, which use CIR more than any other State or country, are among the most prosperous and popular places to live.’
They might have added that the examples represent the extremes of cautious and adventurous societies.
The against arguments mostly boil down to not trusting the people. They are held to not be as wise as our politicians. This at a time when politicians are held in such low esteem!
Opponents of CIR often raise the possibility of the reintroduction of the death penalty as a possibility, since polls sometimes show a majority in favour. However the history of referenda in Australia shows that initial approval in the polls does not guarantee success. In the 1950s, despite early polls indicating a win for the repressive Communist Dissolution Bills, the tide was turned during public debate.
This is a common pattern, only deserving propositions have ben approved.
Republicans may feel unhappy about the result of the last referendum, but until republicans are united behind a single alternative to our existing system, Australia will not become a republic.
(The establishment of the SACC was entirely due to Peter Lewis, who held the balance of power at one stage. His support for the Government was contingent on establishment of the SACC, but when he lost the balance of power the Government ignored the findings of the SACC.)
Joining a political party won’t do much good. Parties are run by cliques and factions and ordinary members get no chance to influence the outcomes.
The only way to force the parliamentarians to act is via Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR). There are good books an the subject - Professor Geoffrey de Q. Walker's The People's Law (1987), or the late Professor Paddy O'Brien's The People's Case (1995). The South Australian Constitutional Convention (SACC) website still exists (www.constitutionalconvention.SA.gov.au) and a comprehensive summary in the Discussion paper can be downloaded. The following précis is from TIA Issue 1, Summer 2003.
What is CIR?
CIR is a form of direct democracy in which a given minimum number or percentage of voters has the power to require a referendum to be taken on a given issue without the approval of the Parliament. It has two essential characteristics:
• the people have the power, by petition, to compel the holding of a referendum on whether a particular law should be enacted or repealed;
• the Government and the Parliament are bound by the result of such a referendum.
Such referenda are distinct from the current system where only the Government can initiate a proposal and normally only does so when it is necessary under the Constitution to make the proposal valid.
Direct legislation by the people was first introduced at the national level in Switzerland in 1874 and has since been adopted in 26 States of the USA. Since the 1970s, it has also been used in Italy. It now also operates in all German States and nationally in Russia. It also operates at a local level in Canada and Italy.
In one extreme version (not being promoted in Australia) petitioners can call for removal of the government and fresh elections. This happened recently in California, where an unpopular Governor was removed at the subsequent poll. Arnold Schwartzneggar was elected instead.
The wishes of the people for a change were met, whether or not they made the right decision on the replacement is another matter.
CIR may be direct or indirect.
Direct initiative requires that the proposed measure be placed on the ballot paper for submission to voters without any action or intervention by Parliament. This form exists in 16 US States and was the basis of a proposal in Queensland in 1998. {Does anybody know anything about this? If so, please let us know]
Indirect initiative provides that the once the petition is presented, the Parliament has a specific time in which to enact the measure. If it refuses or fails to do so, then the proposal is submitted to the voters for their verdict. In the conditionally prescriptive version the Government may call a general election instead.
The arguments for and against
The main arguments supporting CIR deal with making Parliament responsive to the wishes of the people, but there are some interesting extras. Thus Parliamentarians can say to pressure groups who might target them as individuals - ‘put your efforts into a CIR petition’. CIR would also make citizens more politically aware and help counteract cynicism and apathy. Some quotes:
‘Under CIR, the people feel that they remain basically in charge of their own laws no matter what party is in power. This eliminates the feelings of fear, powerlessness and vulnerability that can lead some people to support extremist political movements’.
‘The arguments raised against CIR are largely theoretical and deliberately ignore actual experience with CIR overseas. Despite scaremongering by CIR’s opponents, in no State or country in which CIR exists, has it been used to make laws oppressing minorities, persecuting trade unions, abolishing necessary taxes or introducing barbaric punishments. Switzerland and California, which use CIR more than any other State or country, are among the most prosperous and popular places to live.’
They might have added that the examples represent the extremes of cautious and adventurous societies.
The against arguments mostly boil down to not trusting the people. They are held to not be as wise as our politicians. This at a time when politicians are held in such low esteem!
Opponents of CIR often raise the possibility of the reintroduction of the death penalty as a possibility, since polls sometimes show a majority in favour. However the history of referenda in Australia shows that initial approval in the polls does not guarantee success. In the 1950s, despite early polls indicating a win for the repressive Communist Dissolution Bills, the tide was turned during public debate.
This is a common pattern, only deserving propositions have ben approved.
Republicans may feel unhappy about the result of the last referendum, but until republicans are united behind a single alternative to our existing system, Australia will not become a republic.
(The establishment of the SACC was entirely due to Peter Lewis, who held the balance of power at one stage. His support for the Government was contingent on establishment of the SACC, but when he lost the balance of power the Government ignored the findings of the SACC.)
