Better Democracy NZ

Constitutional Review Debates

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:14:00 +0000

The first in a Sunday series on National radio on the basics of our constitutional review

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/lecturesandforums/constitutional-review

Helen takes exception to the draft Constitution Title

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 07:29:00 +0000

What does everyone else think ? Is having the word "Aotearoa" in or out of the Constitution a dealbreaker for many people ? Would reading it stop you reading any further ?

I have only got to the cover page of your Constitution but before I read any further I take issue with calling our country Aotearoa/New Zealand. We are New Zealand and any change to our country’s name should only be by referendum. Slowly Aotearoa is creeping in as part of our country’s name, when it isn’t. Before we know it the New Zealand part will be dropped and we will just be called Aotearoa and this must never happen without a referendum. I will personally oppose it strongly whenever it comes up. We are New Zealand and its people are New Zealanders first and foremost. Next thing we will be called Aotearoans or something equally ridiculous.

So, I oppose that part of your Constitution before I go any further. I cannot support it whilst Aotearoa is connected to our country’s name

New Zealand Constitution - draft

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:43:00 +0000

https://www.box.com/shared/qb3r03dwk355rrlxpay9

Special thanks to Steve Baron & Dominic baron for many hours put into devising this demonstration Constitution for New Zealand . They believe a Constitution must grow organically & be a true initiative of the people of New Zealand , rather than of the existing parliament & political parties who are too influenced by the dsire to protect their power .

Australian Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:47:00 +0000

Submissions being sought NOW !

Could this bill provide an example for New Zealand ?

The reasons for the referral are for the Committee to consider [ & seek public submission ]

1. Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR) promotes greater openness and accountability in public decision-making.
2. Laws instituted as a result of a CIR are more clearly derived from the popular expression of the people's will.
3. Government authority flows from the people and is based upon their consent.
4. Citizens in a democracy have the responsibility to participate in the political system.
5. The Inter Parliamentary Union's call on member states to strengthen democracy through constitutional instruments including the citizen's right to initiate legislation.

Citizen Initiated referendum Bill 2013

Australian Senate Bill for Citizens Initiated Referenda

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:28:00 +0000

YOUR opportunity to make a submission - see below

-------- Original message --------
From: Ronald Evans <President@CIR-Australia.net>
Date: 20/03/2013 18:26 (GMT+10:00)
To: Evans Ronald <President@CIR-Australia.net>
Subject: Inquiry into Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013

Behold, I bring glad tidings. Please see below.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is a once in a lifetime chance to get Citizens' Initiated Referendums (CIR) so please do whatever you can to express your support. You could send a very brief statement to the committee merely saying that you support this proposal. Just one page, not many minutes of your time, please. You might also send an email to your federal MP and as many of your Senators as you think fit. A few paragraphs, that's all; please. (Remember, it is always best when writing to a legislator to make clear that you are one of their constituents.)

You may be assured that the the committee of CIR Australia will be making detailed submissions to the inquiry and will be doing everything possible to support this initiative from Senator Madigan.

To the barricades citizens!

Ronald Evans

President CIR Australia

www.CIR-Australia.net

THE SENATE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Legislation Committee

20 March 2013

Mr Ronald Evans

President

Citizens Initiated Referendum- Australia

PO Box 3034

Norwood SA 5067

Em: President@CIR-Australia.net

Dear Mr Evans

Inquiry into Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013

On 14 March 2013, the Senate, on the recommendation of the Selection of Bills Committee, referred the Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013 to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2013.

In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee is to consider:

1. Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR) promotes greater openness and accountability in public decision-making.

2. Laws instituted as a result of a CIR are more clearly derived from the popular expression of the people's will.

3. Government authority flows from the people and is based upon their consent.

4. Citizens in a democracy have the responsibility to participate in the political system.

5. The Inter Parliamentary Union's call on member states to strengthen democracy through constitutional instruments including the citizen's right to initiate legislation.

The Bill may be accessed via the link: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fs900%22

The Committee invites you to provide a written submission addressing issues that may be of relevance to you. The submission should be lodged by 19 April 2013. The Committee prefers to receive submissions online as an attached document through the Committee's website via the Upload Submission Online link https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/pages/logon.aspx. Alternatively, submissions may be emailed as an attached document to fpa.sen@aph.gov.au or mailed to the address below.

Submissions become Committee documents and are made public only after a decision by the Committee. Publication of submissions includes loading them onto the internet and making them available to other interested parties including the media. Please indicate if you wish the Committee to consider keeping your submission, or part thereof, confidential.

Any person or organisation making a submission must not release it without the approval of the Committee. Submissions are covered by parliamentary privilege, however the unauthorised release of a submission is not protected.

Information relating to Senate committee inquiries, including notes to assist in the preparation of submissions for a committee, can be located on the Internet at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/wit_sub/index.htm

The Committee will consider all submissions, and may invite individuals and organisations to give evidence at a public hearing.

Should you require further information, please contact the Committee Secretariat on (02) 6277 3530.

Yours sincerely

Christine McDonald

Secretary

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Committee, FPA (SEN)" <FPA.SEN@aph.gov.au>

Subject: Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee- Inquiry into Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013

Date: 11:00:50 AM ACDT

To: "President@CIR-Australia.net" <President@CIR-Australia.net>

Swiss referendum backs executive pay curbs

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:30:00 +0000

Report from BBC

Ex NZ First MP seeks secret ballot for Speaker role

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 02:12:00 +0000

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/38251-brendan-seeks-secret-speaker-ballot.html

More than eight voters out of ten want the right to sack their own MP

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:11:00 +0000

"Radical changes to the political system are overwhelmingly backed by voters after an expenses scandal
that has damaged all parties" (1)

"Eighty-two per cent (want) a system of “recalling” MPs (....) if they have broken the rules" Source: Survey for The Times (1).

Before the general election, knowing that many voters are dissatisfied with politicians and how government is run, the parties all promised effective reforms. After the victory of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in 2010, the coalition agreement was published. This contains the following statement:

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by l0% of his or her constituents."

COALITION HAS FAILED TO INTRODUCE THE RECALL SYSTEM!

A recall bill was put before Parliament but the proposed procedure for sacking an MP was so bad that it was heavily criticised by experts from across the political spectrum. The recall bill was dropped. Private members (MPs) also presented proposals for recall but these failed to gain support. In late 2010 there are no bills or proposals about recall to be found at Parliament's web site.

When will the coalition government obey the will of the people by enabling we constituents to remove an MP who is corrupt or has performed badly?

If HM government is too incompetent to legislate on this, then give us the job. Hold a binding referendum to introduce the "recall". And let's add in a "piggy back" ballot proposal to give ourselves the right to obtain a referendum about any public issue (very useful if gov. "forgets" something important).

-------------------------------

1. Poll suggests voters want radical reform of Parliament, The Times May 30, 2009 Philip Webster, Political Editor.
2. The Coalition: our programme for government. Freedom, fairness, responsibility. David Cameron and Nick Clegg for HM government 2010

--------------------------------------------------
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/ Link to site index
http://www.iniref.org/recall.html The Recall: How it works

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:43:00 +0000

At present, all Austrian men aged up to 35 years are called to duty for a six-month military service or for a one-year civilian service with social organisations. http://www.democracy-international.org/referendum-austria-army.html

BCIR helps you sleep better !

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:04:00 +0000

We all need "tools" of direct democracy like this.

Governments of the city-state of Berlin and its neighbour-Land Brandenburg aim to respond to increased air traffic by building greater airport capacity. Inner-city airports have either been closed down (Tempelhof) or are scheduled to close soon (Tegel). To compensate, a plan has been launched to expand an airport on the south-east city boundary, Schoenefeld (to be known as "Willy Brandt" airport). People living around this airport are resigned to the fact that air traffic will increase but they want to limit the nuisance of noise and pollution. So, there is a movement to limit night flights.

The Land Brandenburg and the city-state of Berlin are each federal states with their own government. In both Lands, citizen campaigns have exploited the RIGHT TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY in attempts to bring in law which would limit night flying.

In Brandenburg, early December 2012, a "Volksbegehren" (people's wish, a legal demand for a referendum like a citizens' initiative) to limit night flights jumped an important hurdle. To trigger a referendum, a citizens' proposal must be endorsed by at least eighty thousand voters. This hurdle was easily jumped after more than 106,000 people signed up. Brandenburg's population is about 2.5 million.

According to the law, the proposal (to limit night flights) must be debated in the Land's parliament in Potsdam. Parliament may agree to make the proposal into law. If parliament rejects the citizens' proposal then a ballot (referendum, Volksentscheid) of all Brandenburg's citizens must be held to decide the matter.

----------------
Direct Democracy Regulations in Land Brandenburg, Federal Republic of Germany.

Hurdle to instigate referendum: 4 percent.

Time allowed to collect endorsements: 4 months (only in government offices, collection in public places not allowed).

Referendum quorum: One quarter of all voters must agree with a proposal to make or change law. Higher hurdles have been set for matters of constitution.
-----------------

Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
http://www.iniref.org/ Link to site index

South Australia Direct Democracy (Citizen-Initiated Referendums) Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:41:00 +0000

1077 Senator Madigan: To move—That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to enable the citizens of Australia to initiate the holding of a referendum in relation to altering the Constitution, and for related purposes. Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013.

*1078 Senator Madigan: To move—That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to enable the citizens of Australia to initiate the holding of a plebiscite in relation to the introduction of legislation into the Federal Parliament, and for related purposes. Citizen Initiated Legislation (Plebiscite) Bill 2013.

The two Bills will be formally introduced into the Senate by Senator Madigan in February 2013. They will more than likely be sent to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for an inquiry and public hearing. I thought I should alert you and your members to the introduction of these Bills.

An Act to enable the electors of South Australia to initiate referendums on new laws, or the repeal or amendment of existing laws, and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws at a referendum.

Contents

Part 1—Preliminary

1 Short title

2 Commencement

3 Interpretation

Part 2—Initiation of referendums by petition

Division 1—Commencement of petitions

4 Initiation of referendums by electors

5 Petition details

6 Submission of petition to Electoral Commissioner

7 Registration of petition

8 Preparation of statement to accompany petition

9 Availability of copy of petition etc

Division 2—Electoral officials

10 Local electoral officials

Division 3—Signatories to petition

11 Signatories to petition

12 Particulars of signatories to petition

13 Counting arrangements

Division 4—Qualification of petition for submission of proposed law to electors

14 Closing date

15 Number of electors required to sign petition to qualify for referendum

16 Certificate of qualification

17 Drafting of proposed law

18 Tabling of petition

19 Drafting of ballot papers

20 Bills to be submitted to the referendum

Part 3—Referendum

21 Date of referendum

22 Conduct of referendum

23 Entitlement to vote

24 Declaration of result of referendum

25 Approval by electors

Part 4—Advertising

26 Printing and publication of CIR advertisements, notices etc

27 Misleading advertising

28 Heading to advertisements

29 Published material to identify person responsible for content

30 Evidence

Part 5—Miscellaneous

31 General ability to withdraw petition

32 Effect of approved law

33 Offences relating to petitions

34 Application to Supreme Court to restrain breach

35 Regulations

Schedule 1—Entrenchment

1 Entrenchment

2 Referendum requirements

3 Electoral Commissioner to conduct referendum

4 Publication of result

5 Presentation of Bill to Governor

The Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This Act may be cited as the Direct Democracy (Citizen-Initiated Referendums) Act

20.

2—Commencement

This Act will come into operation 50 days after it is assented to by the Governor.

3—Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears—

CIR advertisement means an advertisement containing CIR matter;

CIR matter means matter calculated—

(a) to influence members of the public to sign, or not to sign, a registered petition

under this Act; or

(b) to affect the result of a referendum of a proposed law under this Act;

Electoral Commissioner includes a person for the time being acting in the office of

the Electoral Commissioner under the Electoral Act 1985;

elector means a person whose name appears as an elector on an electoral roll kept

under the Electoral Act 1985 for House of Assembly elections (not being a person

under the age of 18 years who is provisionally enrolled), and includes a person whose

name should appear on such a roll as an elector but has, by error, been omitted from

the roll;

House of Assembly electoral district, electoral district or district means a district for

the return of a member of the House of Assembly;

local electoral official—see section 10;

Parliamentary Counsel includes a person for the time being acting in the office of the

Parliamentary Counsel;

petition means a petition for a referendum under this Act;

petitioner in relation to a petition, means a signatory to a petition who is duly

nominated or appointed under section 6 as a petitioner in relation to the petition;

President means the President of the Legislative Council;

proposed law means any law within the legislative powers of the Parliament

of South Australia;

to publish includes to authorise, cause or permit to be published;

qualified petition means a petition for which a certificate of qualification has been

issued by the Electoral Commissioner under section 17(3);

registered petition means a petition registered by the Electoral Commissioner under

this Act;

referendum means a referendum on a proposed law conducted under and in

accordance with this Act;

Speaker means the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

Part 2—Initiation of referendums by petition

Division 1—Commencement of petitions

4—Initiation of referendums by electors

Electors have the right to initiate referendums on proposed laws by petition in

accordance with the provisions of this Act.

5—Petition details

(1) A petition is to be addressed to the President and the Speaker and request that a

referendum be held on the proposed law.

(2) A petition must have a title and contain a prose description of the proposed law in not more than 100 words.

(3) The title and description of the proposed law must not be misleading.

(4) The petition may be accompanied by written material in support of the petition.

(5) Any such supporting material may contain arguments in support of the proposed law.

(6) The petition, the summary and supporting material are to be framed so as to be clearly

intelligible, and must not have an ambiguous meaning.

(7) The petition must comply with any other requirement determined by the Electoral

Commissioner and published in the Gazette for the purposes of this section.

6—Submission of petition to Electoral Commissioner

(1) A petition prepared for the purposes of this Act must be submitted to the Electoral

Commissioner for registration.

(2) A petition submitted to the Electoral Commissioner for registration—

(a) must be signed by not less than 250 persons each of whom was an elector at

the time he or she signed the petition; and

(b) must nominate between 5 and 15 signatories (inclusive) to the petition to be

the petitioners in relation to the petition for the purposes of this Act; and

(c)(1) Any petition lodged within ten years of a substantially similar petition must be accompanied by a lodgement fee of $10 000.

(d) must comply with any other requirement prescribed by the regulations.

(3) Only electors who sign a petition within 100 days before the date of delivery of the petition to the Electoral Commissioner are to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4) A signatory to a petition may, by instrument in writing signed by a majority of the

existing petitioners, be appointed as an additional petitioner or to replace a petitioner

who has resigned or died (but the number of petitioners must be kept to not more than

15.

(5) A person must, by written notice (which may be incorporated into the original

petition), signify his or her consent to being a petitioner.

(6) A person may resign from being a petitioner by written notice furnished to the

Electoral Commissioner and to the other petitioners.

7—Registration of petition

(1) The Electoral Commissioner should, subject to this section, register a petition within 14 days after its delivery to the Electoral Commissioner.

(2) The Electoral Commissioner must not register a petition if—

(a) it does not comply with a relevant requirement of this Act; or

(b) it—

(i) deals with 2 or more subject-matters which appear to the Electoral

Commissioner to be not directly or indirectly related; or

(ii) affects the rights or liabilities of a named person (other than in the

person's capacity as a public official); or

(iii) provides for the appointment of a named person to public office or

for the removal of a named person from public office; or

(iii)(i) Calls for the reintroduction of capital punishment.

(iv) provides for matter which, if enacted as a law of the State, would

clearly be inconsistent with the Australian Constitution or a valid

Commonwealth law.

(3) The Electoral Commissioner may consult with such persons as the Electoral

Commissioner thinks fit for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4) The Electoral Commissioner may request or invite the petitioners to make such

changes to the petition (being changes to its title, the description of the proposed law

set out in the petition or the supporting material accompanying the petition) as the

Electoral Commissioner considers necessary to enable it to be registered.

(5) Any such change may be effected by the withdrawal of the petition and the delivery of a new petition duly signed by the requisite number of electors or, if the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the change does not alter the substance of the proposed law, by a notice in writing signed by all the petitioners.

(6) Once the Electoral Commissioner has accepted a petition a sequential number will be given to the petition and the status of the petition will be shown on the web site of the Electoral Commission. The status of any petition will be:

(6)(1) Upon acceptance of the petition, ‘Lodged’

(6)(2) Upon receipt of the requisite number of signatures, ‘Pending’

(6)(3) Upon expiry of the permitted time without the requisite number of signatures, ‘Lapsed’.

(6)(4) Upon the withdrawal of the petition, ‘Withdrawn’.

(6)(5) Upon the failure of a petition at a referendum, ‘Failed’.

(6)(6) Upon the success of a petition at a referendum, ‘Passed’.

(7) The Electoral Commissioner must notify the petitioners of a decision not to register the petition and inform them of the reasons for that decision.

8—Preparation of statement to accompany petition

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must, on the registration of a petition, deliver a copy of the petition to the Parliamentary Counsel.

(2) The Parliamentary Counsel must, on the receipt of a petition from the Electoral

Commissioner, prepare a brief outline of the legislative measure that the

Parliamentary Counsel would expect to prepare to give effect to the proposed law set

out in the petition.

(3) The Parliamentary Counsel may, in preparing the outline, consult with such persons as the Parliamentary Counsel thinks fit.

(4) The Parliamentary Counsel must, on the completion of the outline, deliver a copy of the outline—

(a) to the Electoral Commissioner; and

(b) to the petitioners.

(5) The outline will form part of the supporting material that is to accompany the petition.

(6) Nothing contained in an outline is binding with respect to the preparation of a draft Bill if the petition subsequently becomes a qualified petition.

9—Availability of copy of petition etc

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must make available for public inspection copies of any petition registered by the Electoral Commissioner, together with any changes notified to the Electoral Commissioner in accordance with this Act and any supporting material accompanying the petition.

(2) Any such material is to be made available at the office of the Electoral Commissioner in Adelaide and on the web site of the Commission.

(4) The Electoral Commissioner may make any such material available for sale at cost.

Division 2—Electoral officials

10—Local electoral officials

(1) The Electoral Commissioner will appoint for each House of Assembly electoral

district a local electoral official to deal with petitions signed by electors in that district.

(2) A person may be appointed as the local electoral official for 2 or more districts.

(3) The Electoral Commissioner may also appoint other persons as electoral officials to assist in dealing with petitions.

(4) An electoral official appointed under this section must exercise a function under this Act in accordance with any relevant direction of the Electoral Commissioner.

Division 3—Signatories to petition

11—Signatories to petition

(1) A signatory to a registered petition must be an elector at the time he or she signs the petition.

(2) A person must not sign a registered petition more than once.

(3) A person who is enrolled or who claims to be an elector may sign a registered petition.

(4) The Electoral Commissioner and any electoral official may use such electoral

information and material as the Electoral Commissioner thinks fit for the purposes of

determining the eligibility of signatories to the petition under this Part.

12—Particulars of signatories to petition

(1) Signature to a petition shall be by way of registration of the signature through the web site of the Electoral Commission. The total of valid signatures at any time shall be shown on the website of the Electoral Commission.

(2) The following particulars of signatories are required on a registered petition:

(a) the full name of the person;

(b) the address of the person (which should be shown on the relevant electoral

roll for the petition);

(d) any other information required by the regulations.

(Division 4—Qualification of petition for submission of proposed law to electors

13—Closing date

The closing date (the last date on which a person may sign a petition) is the date that is 12 months after the end of the month in which the petition was registered.

14—Number of electors required to sign petition to qualify for referendum

(1) A registered petition does not qualify for submission of the proposed law to a

referendum unless the petition has been signed by 2% enrolled electors.

(2) Only electors who sign a petition before the closing date for the petition are to be

taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the petition is a qualified

petition.

15 Certificate of qualification

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must certify any petition which the Electoral

Commissioner determines qualifies for submission of the proposed law to a

referendum.

(2) The certificate (a certificate of qualification) is to set out the description of the

proposed law.

(3) The Electoral Commissioner issues the certificate of qualification by publishing the certificate in the Gazette and on the web site of the Commission.

(4) If the Electoral Commissioner issues a certificate of qualification, the Electoral

Commissioner must, within 7 days, deliver a copy of the certificate and any relevant

material—

(a) to the President and to the Speaker; and

(b) to the Parliamentary Counsel.

16—Drafting of proposed law

(1) The Parliamentary Counsel is required to prepare a draft of the law proposed by a

qualified petition in accordance with the relevant description supplied by the Electoral

Commissioner.

(2) The Parliamentary Counsel must, in preparing a draft of the proposed law, consult

with one or more of the petitioners, and may consult with any other persons as the

Parliamentary Counsel thinks fit.

(3) The Parliamentary Counsel may, in preparing a draft of a proposed law, on his or her own initiative, include such provisions or make such adjustments as in his or her

opinion are necessary or appropriate to ensure that the law is legally effective and

include such transitional, machinery, ancillary or related provisions as the

Parliamentary Counsel (in his or her absolute discretion) thinks fit.

(4) The Parliamentary Counsel must deliver a settled draft of the proposed law—

(a) to the President and the Speaker; and

(b) to the petitioners.

17—Tabling of petition

(1) As soon as practicable after the Electoral Commissioner has delivered to the President and the Speaker the certificate of qualification for a petition and the Parliamentary Counsel has delivered to the President and the Speaker a copy of the draft proposed law—

(a) the President is required to cause a copy of the certificate and the draft Bill to

be tabled in the Legislative Council; and

(b) the Speaker is required to cause a copy of the certificate and the draft Bill to

be tabled in the House of Assembly.

(2) The Parliamentary Counsel may, after consultation with the President, the Speaker, and a representative of the petitioners (nominated by a majority of the petitioners in accordance with the regulations), and any other persons as the Parliamentary Counsel thinks fit, alter and then resettle a draft Bill after it has been tabled and the Parliamentary Counsel may do this on more than 1 occasion but must not act so as to derogate from the general purposes of the Bill).

18—Drafting of ballot papers

(1) A question on the ballot paper at a referendum of a proposed law may deal with not more than 1 subject-matter of a proposed law unless the subject-matters are directly or indirectly related.

(2) Separate questions must be presented on the ballot paper if the Electoral

Commissioner or the Parliamentary Counsel requires the submission of separate

questions on a provision or provisions of a subject-matter of the proposed law to

referendum.

(3) The form and presentation of the ballot paper will be determined by the Electoral

Commissioner after consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel and a representative

of the petitioners nominated by a majority of the petitioners in accordance with the

regulations.

(4) If there are 2 or more questions on the ballot paper, and these deal with the same

subject-matter, the voting on these questions may be by preferential voting, or by

some other method of voting, as determined by the Electoral Commissioner after

consultation with the petitioners (or a representative of the petitioners nominated by a

majority of the petitioners in accordance with the regulations).

(5) The Electoral Commissioner may determine any other related matter as the Electoral Commissioner thinks fit.

19—Bills to be submitted to the referendum

The Bill or Bills as last settled by the Parliamentary Counsel is or are the Bill or Bills

to be submitted to the referendum.

Part 3—Referendum

20—Date of referendum

(1) Subject to this Act, a referendum on a proposed law must be held on—

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies, the date of the first general election of members of the House of Assembly after the tabling of the draft proposed law in both Houses of Parliament under section 17; or

(b) a date determined by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, being a date

that is earlier than the date that would otherwise apply under paragraph (a).

(c) Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), the petitioners may elect to have the referendum held by way of a postal vote in March of any year.

(c)(i) The election to hold a postal vote shall be made by the petitioners at the time the petition is first lodged by the petitioners and this election may not be changed without the permission of the Electoral Commissioner.

(c)(ii) The Electoral Commissioner shall determine the rules for the conduct of a postal vote and shall publish regulations governing the conduct of such a vote.

(2) Nothing in this section prevents more than 1 referendum being held on the same day.

21—Conduct of referendum

(1) The Electoral Commissioner is responsible for the conduct of the referendum.

(2) The Electoral Act 1985 applies to the referendum with adaptions, exclusions and

modifications prescribed by regulation, or determined by the Electoral Commissioner

by notice in the Gazette, as if the referendum were a general election of members of

the House of Assembly.

(3) The petitioners may, by notice given to the Electoral Commissioner in accordance

with the regulations, appoint 1 or more scrutineers for the purposes of the referendum.

22—Entitlement to vote

The persons entitled to vote at a referendum will be the electors (and no other

persons).

23—Declaration of result of referendum

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must publish the result of a referendum by notice in the Gazette and on the web site of the Commission when the result is conclusively determined.

(2) The publication of a notice under subsection (1) is conclusive evidence of the result of the referendum.

24—Approval by electors

(1) A proposed law is approved by the electors at a referendum if a majority of the

electors voting at the referendum approve the proposed law, provided always that at least 50% of those eligible to vote have cast a valid vote, and, in the case of a postal vote:

(1)(a) The petition calling for the referendum has had a Pending status for at least 50 days before the date of the referendum.

(1)(b) In the case of a postal vote, the date of the referendum referred to in paragraph (1)(a) shall determined by the Electoral Commissioner.

(2) On approval, the proposed law is to be taken as incorporating a request to the

Governor that the Governor assent to the approved law, and the Electoral

Commissioner is required to present the approved law to the Governor for the

Governor's assent.

(3) The enacting provision of a law approved by the electors, when so assented to, will be:

"The electors of South Australia under the provisions of the Direct

Democracy (Citizen-Initiated Referendums) Act 20xx enact as follows:".

(4) If the electors approve at 2 or more referendums held on the same day 2 or more

proposals the provisions of which conflict in any respect, the provisions of the

proposal receiving the highest affirmative vote will, to the extent of any inconsistency, prevail, and those other provisions are, to the extent of any inconsistency, invalid and of no effect.

Part 4—Advertising

25—Printing and publication of CIR advertisements, notices etc

(1) A person must not publish or distribute, or cause or permit to be published or

distributed, a CIR advertisement in printed form unless—

(a) the name and address (not being a post office box) of the author of the

advertisement, or the person who authorised its publication, appears at the

end; and

(b) in the case of a CIR advertisement that is printed but not in a newspaper—the

name and place of business of the printer appears at the end.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a body corporate—$5 000;

(b) if the offender is a natural person—$1 250.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—

(a) a car sticker, T-shirt, lapel button, lapel badge, pen, pencil or balloon; or

(b) an article included in a prescribed class of articles.

26—Misleading advertising

(1) This section applies to advertisements published by any means (including radio or

television).

(2) A person who authorises, causes or permits the publication of a CIR advertisement (an advertiser) is guilty of an offence if the advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a body corporate—$10 000;

(b) if the offender is a natural person—$1 250.

(3) However, it is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (2) to establish that the defendant—

(a) took no part in determining the content of the advertisement; and

(b) could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which

the charge relates was inaccurate and misleading.

(4) If the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that a CIR advertisement contains a

statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a

material extent, the Electoral Commissioner may request the advertiser to do one or

more of the following:

(a) withdraw the advertisement from further publication;

(b) publish a retraction in specified terms and a specified manner and form,

(and in proceedings for an offence against subsection (2) arising from the

advertisement, the advertiser's response to a request under this subsection will be

taken into account in assessing any penalty to which the advertiser may be liable).

27—Heading to advertisements

(1) If CIR matter is to be inserted in a journal, the proprietor of the journal must cause the word "advertisement" to be printed as a headline in letters not smaller than 10 point or long primer to each article or paragraph containing the CIR matter.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a body corporate—$2 500;

(b) if the offender is a natural person—$750.

(2) This section applies only in respect of CIR matter for the publication of which

payment or other consideration has been, or is to be, given.

(3) In this section—

journal means a newspaper, magazine or other periodical, whether published for sale

or for distribution without charge.

28—Published material to identify person responsible for content

(1) A person must not publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, the issues being submitted to electors by a registered petition under this Act or in a

referendum under this Act, in written form, or by radio or television, unless the

material or the program in which the material is presented contains a statement of the

name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility

for the publication of the material.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a body corporate—$5 000;

(b) if the offender is a natural person—$1 250.

(2) This section does not apply to—

(a) the publication in a newspaper of a leading article;

(b) the publication of a report of a meeting that does not contain any comment

(other than comment made by a speaker at the meeting) on the issues being

submitted to electors;

newspaper contains a statement to the effect that a person whose name and

address (not being a post office box) appears in the statement takes

responsibility for the publication of all CIR matter published in the

newspaper;

(d) a news service or a current affairs programme on radio or television;

(e) any other prescribed material or class of material.

29—Evidence

In proceedings for an offence against this Part—

(a) a CIR advertisement that includes a statement that its publication was

authorised by a specified person; or

(b) a CIR advertisement that includes a statement that it was printed by a

specified person; or

submitted to electors, that includes a statement that a specified person takes

responsibility for the publication of the material; or

(d) an apparently genuine document purporting to be a certificate of the Electoral

Commissioner certifying that the Electoral Commissioner made a request for

the withdrawal of a misleading advertisement or the publication of a

retraction,

is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, proof of that fact.

Part 5—Miscellaneous

30—General ability to withdraw petition

(1) The petitioners may, by notice in writing signed by a majority of the petitioners and provided to the Electoral Commissioner, at any time, propose—

(a) the withdrawal of a petition; or

(b) the withdrawal of any part of the subject-matter of a proposed law; or

(d) the termination of a referendum.

(2) Subject to any determination of the Electoral Commissioner after consultation with the Attorney-General, a notice under subsection (1) will have effect according to its terms and the Electoral Commissioner must give notice of this in the Gazette and on the web site of the Commission.

31—Effect of approved law

(1) A law approved by electors at a referendum and assented to by the Governor under this Act will be taken to be an Act of the Parliament of South Australia for the

purposes of any other Act or law (and may then be subject to the operation of a

subsequent Act of the Parliament.

(2) A law approved by electors at a referendum may itself effect amendments to an Act of Parliament (including an Act within the ambit of subsection (1)).

(3) An irregularity in compliance with a provision of Part 2 does not affect the validity of a law approved by electors at a referendum and assented to by the Governor under this Act.

32—Offences relating to petitions

(1) A person who signs another person's name to a petition, whether electronically or otherwise, or who knowingly signs a petition more than once, or who, not being an elector, knowingly signs a petition, is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who gives or offers or promises to give any money or other material benefit to a person to obtain the person's signature to a petition is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who, without reasonable excuse, hinders or obstructs a person from

collecting signatures for a petition is guilty of an offence.

(4) A person who knowingly misrepresents a proposed law in order to induce a person to sign or not sign a petition is guilty of an offence.

(5) A person who uses or makes available to any person any particulars obtained from a petition about a signatory to a petition for a purpose that is not connected with the administration of this Act is guilty of an offence.

(6) A person who threatens, offers or suggests any violence, injury, damage, loss or

disadvantage to any elector or any other person in order to induce an elector to sign or

refrain from signing a petition is guilty of an offence.

(7) A person who inflicts or procures any violence, injury, damage, loss or disadvantage to an elector or any other person for or on account of an elector signing or refraining from signing a petition is guilty of an offence.

(8) A person who prints, publishes or distributes any advertisement or document

containing a representation of a ballot paper, or any representation appearing to

represent a ballot paper, containing directions likely to mislead, or any untrue or

incorrect statement likely to mislead, an elector in or in relation to the casting of a vote at a referendum is guilty of an offence.

(9) If a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Act, each director and manager of the body corporate is guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalty as may be imposed for the principal offence unless it is proved that the principal offence did not result from failure on his or her part to take reasonable and practicable measures to prevent the commission of the offence.

(10) A person who is found guilty of an offence against this Act is liable to a penalty not exceeding $10 000.

33—Application to Supreme Court to restrain breach

(1) The Electoral Commissioner may apply to the Supreme Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act.

(2) An application may be made in the absence of the respondent and, if the Court is

satisfied on the application that the respondent has a case to answer, the Court may

grant leave to the applicant to serve a summons requiring the respondent to appear

before the Court to show cause why an order should not be made under this section.

(3) If—

(a) after hearing—

(i) the applicant and the respondent; and

(ii) any other person who has, in the opinion of the Court, a proper

interest in the subject matter of the proceedings and desires to be

heard in the proceedings, the Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent to the application has breached this Act; or

(b) the respondent fails to appear in response to the summons or, having

appeared, does not avail himself or herself of an opportunity to be heard,

the Court may, by order, exercise 1 or more of the following powers:

act, or course of action, that constitutes the breach;

(d) require the respondent to make good the breach in a manner, and within a

period, specified by the Court, or to take such other action as may appear

appropriate to the Court;

(e) if relevant—require the respondent to do one or both of the following:

(i) withdraw an advertisement from further publication;

(ii) publish a retraction in specified terms and in a specified manner and

form;

(f) require the respondent to pay to any person who has incurred costs or

expenses as a result of the breach, an amount for, or towards, those costs or

expenses;

(g) if the Court considers it appropriate to do so, require the respondent to pay an

amount, determined by the Court, in the nature of exemplary damages into

the Consolidated Account;

(h) require the respondent to take specified action to publicise—

(i) the breach of this Act; and

(ii) the other requirements of the order made against the respondent.

(4) The Court may make such order in relation to costs of proceedings under this section as it thinks just and reasonable.

(5) In this section—

breach of this Act includes a threatened contravention of, or failure to comply with,

this Act.

34—Regulations

(1) The Governor may make such regulations as are contemplated by, or necessary or

expedient for the purposes, of this Act.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may—

(a) provide for the form and provision of any document under or for the purposes

of this Act; and

(b) provide that any matter or thing is to be determined, dispensed with, regulated

or prohibited according to the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner or

another prescribed person; and

comply with, a regulation.

Schedule 1—Entrenchment

1—Entrenchment

No law passed as a result of a referendum conducted under this Act shall be repealed or substantially amended unless:

(1)(a) The repeal or amendment has been approved at a referendum (which may be called by the parliament at any time) or,

(1)(b) The repeal or amendment has received a two thirds majority vote of both houses of the South Australian Parliament.

2—Referendum requirements

(1) A referendum under this Schedule will be held on a date appointed by proclamation for the purpose, being a date falling at least 50 days after the Bill is passed by Parliament.

(2) The question to be put at the referendum will be specified by proclamation.

3—Electoral Commissioner to conduct referendum

(1) The Electoral Commissioner will be responsible for the conduct of the referendum.

(2) The Electoral Act 1985 applies to the referendum with adaptions, exclusions and

modifications prescribed by regulation, or determined by the Electoral Commissioner

by notice in the Gazette, as if the referendum were a general election of members of

the House of Assembly.

(3) An elector is under a duty to vote at the referendum.

4—Publication of result

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must publish the result of the referendum by notice in the Gazette and on the web site of the Commission when the result is conclusively determined.

(2) The publication of a notice under subclause (1) is conclusive evidence of the result of the referendum.

5—Presentation of Bill to Governor

If a majority of electors voting at the referendum approve the Bill at the referendum, it will be presented to the Governor for assent.

Poll: Enthusiasm for Referenda motivated California voters more than Presidency Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:29:00 +0000

California’s initiative process is viewed with befuddlement around the country and blamed for many of the ills that plague state government. But this year’s election reaffirmed that voters here love their direct democracy.
The 10 initiatives and one referendum on the November ballot did more to drive Golden State voters to the polls than the presidential contest, which was never much of a contest in Democratic California, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.
The survey found that 48% of Californians were more motivated to vote by one of the ballot measures than by the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Just 39% of voters said they were most enthusiastic about casting their vote for president.
Among the measures, Proposition 30 was viewed by voters as the most important measure one on the ballot. A quarter of those surveyed said Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to temporarily boost taxes on sales and upper incomes was their primary reason for going to the polls.
"It dealt with two issues – schools and taxes – that are always at the front of voters minds," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.
Proposition 30 passed with more than 54% of the vote in last week’s election, boosted by support from Democrats, who favored the measure 4-1, the survey found.
The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences /Los Angeles Times survey of 1,520 registered voters was conducted from Nov. 7-12. The survey was done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic polling firm, in conjunction with the GOP firm American Viewpoint.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/11/uscla-times-poll-proposition-30-initiative-california.html

Alex Salmond announces Scottish independence referendum terms

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:06:00 +0000

Most wouldn’t know , but there has been a Scottish Parliament since 1999 & in 2014 there will be a referendum on whether Scotland becomes a separate self governing country within Britain . This especially popular with the young & the Scottish National Party minority government intends to extend the franchise to 16 year olds to take advantage of this . Also , th referendum will be conducted by a Board independent of the Parliament .

Very instructive for BCIRT supporters to see how this referendum has been planned .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtgg4R4ocSk&feature=related

Written Constitutions in a BCIR Environment

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:41:00 +0000

Contrasting articles for Muriel Newman's website by (1) James Allan ( Garrick professor of Law at the University of Queensland; & BCIR activist Dominic Baron They force us to consider how Binding referenda would operate differently if New Zealand had a written Constitution , rather than merely a set of conventions. From US experience , written Constitutions invite judicial activism . But maybe not ? Baron argues that a Constitution that is regularly maintained by the people through BCIR doesn;t require judicial "repair" . However , at least in the immediate term , a Constitution could limit the types of Proposals which could be accepted for voting , because they would breach the Constitution .

Allen

Representative Democracy should be used for all decisions & a written Constitution for none . ( Approx 1400 words )

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest311.htm

Baron

A written Constitution with Representative Democracy is not a problem provided a universal Direct Democracy exists . ( Approx 1900 words )

Wikipedia - Swiss Federal Constitution (article )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_constitution

A reply to James Allan by Dominic Baron
5 November 2012
A democratic written constitution for NZ.

James Allan dismisses peremptorily the very idea of a written constitution for New Zealand. Yet I note right at the outset that at no point does he make any reference to the most thoroughly democratic constitution on this planet, that of the Swiss Confederation. That lacuna will be remedied by my response.

Let's start with this remark of his:

“Now I am a big time partisan of democratic decision-making. I think all the key social policy decisions, the line-drawing choices related to abortion, same-sex marriage, how to deal with those claiming to be refugees, where tobacco companies can advertise, and myriad other such debatable, highly disputed issues, ought to be made by the elected legislature, NOT by judges.”

I too reject the interference of any judge in the making of the rules by which we wish to live. But then James Allan equates democracy with an elected legislature! Here is where we part company at the most fundamental level: I reject totally the notion that any assembly should determine any of the basic rules by which our society lives. Only the people have this right. Only the people have the right to determine the rules for abortion. Only the people have the right to determine the meaning of marriage. The only role of assemblies is to propose, but only the people have the right to dispose. The people have the absolute right of veto. Anything else is a usurpation of the sovereignty of the people. The most savage example of this usurpation occurred recently when 'parliament' ignored the overwhelming command from the people of New Zealand not to criminalise parents who make use of a smack to correct their children's behaviour.

Continuing his theme about the role of the judiciary in both the Australian and United States political systems in “interpreting” those nations' constitutions James Allan observes:

“Heck, this ‘living tree’ interpretive approach is the position of about half the US Supreme Court and, these days, over half of the Justices of Australia’s top court.

And what that means is that judges, and no one else but the judges, can update the written Constitution.”

The moment one looks at the Swiss Constitution one sees what nonsense Allan is spouting. The Swiss Constitution is updated several times a year by the will of the Swiss people. Often against the will of the political classes! The political classes wanted to build a massive tunnel to take the trucks of the European community through the Alps to Italy, but the Swiss people said: “No, expand the railways instead.” The political classes want Switzerland to join the European Union – the people of Switzerland regularly tell them to go jump in the lakes! The political classes trembled before imagined Islamic threats and desperately opposed the Swiss people's initiative to stop the construction of any more minarets in Swiss towns. The people gave the political classes a well-deserved kick in the pants and the imaginary Islamic menaces evaporated in hot air.

Now James Allan comes up with an even sillier remark:

“Put a little more simply, written constitutions take away from democracy.”

The Swiss Constitution entrenches the right of 50,000 electors to demand a veto referendum on any legislation approved by the Federal Parliament. The Swiss Constitution entrenches the right of 100,000 electors to put forward an entirely new Initiative for referendum. The Swiss Constitution requires any decision to participate in international treaties and organisations to be ratified by referendums. The Swiss Constitution requires any alteration to the Constitution, and to the rights and duties of citizens to be ratified by those self-same citizens in referendums.

All referendums are binding by definition. Anything else is merely a taxpayer-financed opinion poll.

And now for some classic canards:

“Don’t forget, without a written constitution and relying solely on the elected legislature New Zealand was the first country on earth to grant women the vote;...”

This was done purely for electoral advantage by the political party that was about to lose power, exactly the same trick was used in Great Britain a couple of decades later! Swiss men formally granted women the vote in a referendum in 1971 – when the vote really means something you care deeply about who you give it to!

...“it gave Maori men the vote back in the 1860s;”...In Switzerland, from 1292 onwards German-speakers, French-speakers, Italian-speakers, Romansh- speakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants all got the vote.

...”it brought in social welfare laws for workers before just about anywhere else;”... Swiss voters brought in by their initiatives in the 19th and 20th centuries sensible provisions for regulating employment.

...”it completely overhauled its economy when it was breaking at the seams in the 1980s.” Those 'overhauls' have proved to be terribly destructive in reality, and the people of New Zealand would have struck them down if their power to veto those destructions had not been usurped. By contrast, no unrealistic interventions in the economy have ever been demanded or approved by the Swiss people.

“New Zealand’s record on just about any criterion going looks better than those of places with written constitutions.” Hmm, how does the NZ economy compare with the Swiss...? More significantly, how do NZ democratic rights compare with the Swiss...?

And then James Allan proceeds to dwell on the wholly undemocratic aspects of the US and Canadian constitutions:

“But the problem with a written constitution doesn’t stop there. It gets worse, and a little more complicated too, because the scope for those interpreting a written constitution at the point-of-application (meaning the judges) to impose results that they happen to like on the rest of us depends in part on how specific and detailed the legal text happens to be. So interpreting a Tax Act, say, involves giving meaning to something that is mightily detailed and though there will always be areas of doubt and uncertainty that the judge will have to resolve, they will be few and far between.

But written constitutions are not like Tax Acts. They do not deal in detail and specifics. They tend to be short. If they have an entrenched Bill of Rights they deal in moral abstractions that are vague, amorphous and begging to be filled with content NOT by you and me and the voters but by the judges of the Canadian Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court (who might say the words now, all of a sudden, demand same-sex marriage (as in Canada) or almost no limits on the funding of elections (as in the US) or just about anything else). “

I quite agree! That is why no constitution can be legitimate if it isn't democratic. And it most certainly is not democratic if it is subject to the idiotic concept of a 'Supreme Court'! There is only one inalienable Sovereign Power that has the absolute final say on any words and their meaning: The People. The Swiss Constitution is amended by the will of the people alone. No 'Supreme Court' can ever over-rule the will of the Swiss people. It is precisely the presence of a 'Supreme Court' with the power to over-rule the will of the US people that renders the US constitution such a depressingly anti-democratic document.

Then James Allan worries about 'judicial interpretations' of the Treaty of Waitangi:

“And here’s the thing. The exact same thing can be said of the Maori Party’s push to have a written constitution that incorporates the Treaty of Waitangi.”

No need to worry, James, because the integration of the Treaty of Waitangi into a legitimate democratic constitution will be interpreted only as the people see fit, and not by any 'judges' whatsoever.

And here we come to the crux of James Allan's error:

“And you know what? The elected parliament won’t be able to do anything about it. That’s the point of a written constitution. It trumps parliament. It overrides parliamentary sovereignty. It enervates democracy.”

Quite the contrary! Only in a written constitution can true, real democracy be entrenched to the deepest level. The concept of 'parliamentary sovereignty' is utterly void because sovereignty rests inalienably with the people. The present political régime is illegitimate and usurps the sovereignty of the people of New Zealand. It must be, and will be, demolished by granting our nation our first democratic constitution.

And James Allan continues compounding more errors in the same vein:

“Now that may be a good thing if you reckon you can get a more favourable deal out of a committee of ex-lawyer judges in Wellington than you can out of the democratic process. But for democrats like me it is an appalling prospect.

And don’t forget. It’s not as if New Zealanders will be offered an Australian-style written constitution that largely forswears amorphous, content-free abstractions. And it’s not as if Kiwis can be guaranteed an approach to interpreting this document that will be guided by the intentions of those drafting it or the understandings of those who agreed to its adoption. Heck, even with New Zealand’s statutory bill of rights the top Kiwi judges almost immediately proclaimed that its meaning would be independent of the understandings of those who drafted it and enacted it. And in Australia they purport to ‘find’ things in the text that have supposedly (and implausibly) lain dormant for 80 or 90 years.

Look, I think you can bet your very last dollar that should you go down the road of a written constitution its meaning will in fact be determined by a process that essentially involves the top judges consulting their own moral sensibilities, perhaps consulting what is going on overseas in other jurisdictions, and that involves a whole heap of so-called ‘balancing’ and deciding on what they, the judges, consider to be ‘reasonable’.

Let’s face it. Go down this road and you sell away some of New Zealand’s wonderful democratic decision-making.”

Yes, if we went the way of the Australian, Canadian, Fijian, South African, US, and dozens of other constitutions that are profoundly illegitimate because they were created by political élites for political élites, then indeed it would be “an appalling prospect” to me too. But this is the point: the people of New Zealand must create a legitimate constitution that can only be amended by the people by referendums. Drawing heavily on the Swiss model we must create a constitution that stands above all assemblies and all courts of any description.

And at last a glimmer of perception from James Allan:

“I think it would be a disaster for New Zealand to move to a written constitution of the sort almost certain to be offered.”

Agreed. For example: the draft constitution elaborated recently by a group of 50 young élitists under the aegis of the McGuinness Institute. It kicks off with the abysmal error of presenting itself as an 'act of parliament' and then fails totally all the democratic tests for a legitimate constitution. Worst of all it betrays the sovereignty of the people to a mere parliament and thence to the ultimate control of 'judges'. That truly is an appalling travesty of a constitution.

Yet again, James Allan worries about the Treaty:

“And I would run a mile from incorporating or entrenching the Treaty into any such instrument, not least because overwhelmingly no one knows what it means when applied to any specific issue. So all you will be buying is the views of the top judges, instead of your own, the voters. That’s not a trade I would ever make.”

Precisely, that's what a legitimate democratic constitution is designed to prevent.

Then James Allan makes yet another mistake, this time in believing that the method of electing people to assemblies is the only democratic function open to us:

“And to finish with a last bit of bluntness, I’m not overly sure that Mr. Key is all that reliable on these sort of issues. He seems to me, from over here across the Tasman, to be a man who courts popularity rather standing up for what will benefit New Zealand in the long term. One of the most important issues in my mind for New Zealand had always been to rid the country of one of the world’s worst voting systems, MMP. Mr Key by and large stayed out of that debate making a few perfunctory anti comments but doing little else.

But if he thought MMP was holding back New Zealand’s ability to prosper in the modern world, as I do, then he should have taken the risk of getting actively involved. The result might have been different. (And I do still worry about New Zealand’s prospects under this lousy voting system that puts the major political parties at the mercy of small ones that garner barely 1 in 20 of the votes but who can use their ‘kingmaker’ status to demand all sort of things – even a proposal to look at moving to a written constitution that locks in the Treaty.)”

Nothing could be more trivial in a legitimate democratic constitution, such as the Swiss one. Because they know that their proposals, if approved by the Federal assemblies, are subject to the possibility of a veto referendum being demanded, political parties minimise that risk by keeping to the mainstream of popular opinion. Oh yes, the result may be bland, but the consensus between the major political parties has lasted already some four decades, and the stability of the Swiss economy and political system are second to none in consequence. It is left to the people to put forward initiatives that may deal with personal behaviour and morality... and the people always have the final say.

And so I conclude by disagreeing strongly with James Allan over the need for a written constitution, but principally because the vision he has is based exclusively on anti-democratic and therefore intrinsically illegitimate models. All his concerns are swept away when the only example of a truly legitimate, democratic constitution, that has been in existence for over 150 years, is considered, namely: the Swiss Federal Constitution. Its most recent revision was ratified by the people of Switzerland in 1999, by a referendum, of course.

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:13:00 +0000

Doing academic research on direct democracy or simply wanting to read more academic information?

Then click below to be hundreds of direct democracy articles.

https://www.box.com/embed_widget/acbeeb05e105/s/bslg3bqefotvg8j70cpr?view=expanded&sort=name&direction=ASC&theme=blue%22

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:18:00 +0000

How money worksBen Dyson, founder and director of Positive Money, tells how his disillusionment with mainstream economics led him to campaign for a proper understanding of how money works as the first step in fixing a failed banking system.

Swiss Vice president Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf on what to expect from political leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:44:00 +0000

Uploaded by StGallenSymposium on 13 May 2011

The Vice President of Switzerland will close the 41st St. Gallen Symposium with an assessment of political leadership which, in the wake of recent global political and economic crises, has been put in the spotlight time and time again.

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf: Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf (born in 1956) has been Vice President of the Swiss Federal Council since 2011. Having been Head of the Finance and Military Department of the Canton Grisons for eight years, she was elected Federal Councillor in 2007, leading the Federal Department of Justice and Police. In November 2010, Widmer-Schlumpf became Head of the Federal Department of Finance.

Furthermore, she was a member of the Bank Council of the Swiss National Bank, President of the Conference of Cantonal Finance Directors and was elected Swiss personality of the year 2008 by the Swiss population. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf graduated in law and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZnY1oPiLJA&feature=plcp

Baron: Can NZ learn from international trial & error?

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:32:00 +0000

Internet Voting - What Can NZ Learn from International Trials & Errors

Baron: Veto power needed over new laws ?

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:29:00 +0000

Do We Need The Power Of veto Over New Laws ? Baron

Baron: Longer election term needed in NZ?

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:28:00 +0000

Steve Baron - Longer Election Term Needed

Empower the people, says AU Senator Bob Katter. Bring on recall elections, and Citizen Initiated Referenda

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:01:00 +0000

Bob Katter has been the Federal Member for Kennedy since 1993, following a highly successful 18 year career in Queensland State politics where he held four Ministerial positions. Formerly a National but now an Independent, he enjoys the freedom to vote in line with his conscience and the feelings and needs of the people of the electorate. He strongly objects to the free market policies endorsed by the major parties. He believes these have had a devastating effect on his electorate and on Australia as a whole.
He is the leader of Katter's Australian Party (aka The Australian Party), a new party which that his core values and principles and which received nearly 300,000 votes in the 2012 election. An application for the federal registration of the party is pending.

In this interview with Professor David Flint, he discusses direct democracy as in Switzerland and some North American jurisdictions where the people can recall governments and enact legislation by Ctizen Initiated Referenda. (CIR)

Letter to The Dominion - Monday, 22 June 1961

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:18:00 +0000

The Editor

ELECTORS AND ELECTED

Sir,--Many thinking people support the recommendation by a general committee of the Constitutional Society in Wellington a few months ago for inclusion in a written con-stitution for New Zealand of a system of initiative and recall similar to that operat-ing in Switzerland. This would enable a specified number of electors to bring to the notice of Parliament the need for any special legislation or delay the pas-sage of legislation to which objection was taken; also by the power of recall the elec-tors could recall a Parlia-mentary representative who did not honour his election pledge or whose actions were contrary to the interests of his constituents.

The evident decline in prestige of Parliament during recent years in New Zealand may have resulted from the fact that domination by cau-cus destroys a sense of re-sponsibility on both sides of the House. Politicians are aware that with a politically lazy-minded people, such as we are, the old Roman tech-nique of government in pro-viding “bread and circuses” for the masses ensure the givers popular support.--I am, etc.,

L. C. SMITH.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Baron) — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:42:00 +0000

Our Facebook page can be found at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Democracy-NZ/302914482831 please like us to keep informed.

Swiss Government Approves Internet Voting for Referenda

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 03:20:00 +0000

Bern, 29.08.2012 -- The Swiss government (Bundesrat) has approved the requests of twelve Cantons (regions) to use electronic voting in the federal (countrywide) referendum-ballot in November 2012. Around 164,000 citizens will be enabled to vote via Internet. All of these twelve Cantons have already successfully conducted trials of electronic voting.

Forwarded by
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
<>

MMP Review - Proposals Paper

noreply@blogger.com (Socred) — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:37:00 +0000

Issue 5 : 13 August 2012

Thank you again for your submission on the 2012 review of the MMP voting system.

The Electoral Commission considered all submissions received during the development of a set of proposals for change.

These have today been released as a Proposals Paper, and the public is again invited to make comment on the proposals being suggested.

The Proposals Paper is available online here.

Alternately, you can call 0800 36 76 56 to be sent a hard copy of the Proposals Paper.

Comment on the Proposals Paper must be received by 5pm on Friday 7 September, and can be made online,

or by post to:

MMP Review

Electoral Commission
PO Box 3220
Wellington 6140