Sandra Paterson: Ideally, MPs would represent the people

Are referendums the way to go? As a 17-year-old exchange student in Switzerland, I watched with interest as every citizen got the chance to say whether or not to join the United Nations.

The result of the referendum was a resounding no, and I remember Papa, my host-father, declaring loudly that his compatriots were too conservative for their own good.

"They still yodel, for heaven's sake," he railed, waving toward the mountainous regions where people tended to hold more traditional, conservative views.

"But that's the referendum system for you, the people have spoken," he said. "Hopefully things will change and one day our time will come."

It did, although sadly Papa died before seeing it. Fifteen years later the same question was asked again and the tiny country joined the United Nations in 2002.

So are binding referendums a good idea or not? Some in this country would say yes, bring in the Swiss system for critical issues like civil unions, but an equal number are throwing their hands up in horror at the very thought. Then there's the rest of us, who are still sitting on the fence.

In an ideal world, of course, there would be no need for any sort of mass public vote, binding or otherwise. MPs would seek to represent the views of their constituents accurately; and a conscience vote would be exactly that.

But the Civil Union Bill saw MPs under huge pressure to toe the party line, particularly in the Labour Party, and under huge pressure from lobby groups and members of the public. The vast majority of submissions were against the bill, but that, in the end, counted for little.

(I have nothing but contempt, by the way, for the sick individuals who sent pro-civil union MPs a jar of faeces and a castration kit; and for those who wrote pompous hellfire-and-brimstone messages. I'm all for making a stand, but for goodness sake do it in a respectful, reasonable kind of way.)

The hoo-haa of the past few weeks does indicate, I think, that many people on the street want to have more of a say. As things stand, we have our one day of democracy on election day and then we put up with whatever the Government decides to do for the next three years.

Lately it seems that no matter what, those in power will continue to push through controversial legislation at breakneck speed and ignore public opinion.

IN 1999, for example, 82 per cent of voters said they wanted fewer MPs, but nothing has been done about it.

Last year, opinion polls indicated more than 70 per cent of the population was opposed to lifting the moratorium on genetic engineering; most people wanted the Privy Council kept intact, too, and for prostitution to stay illegal.

Somehow, the ideals and values of most New Zealanders are certainly not being reflected in the decisions made by the Government.

In Switzerland, they have been using binding, citizen-initiated referendums for more than 130 years, to veto laws, amend the constitution or to initiate new legislation.

If an ordinary citizen feels strongly about an issue, he can draw up a law and then see if he can get enough signatures - no easy task - to get it put to the ballot. The people then vote on it and if it passes, it becomes law.

It all sounds hunky-dory, but, like any process, it could still be hijacked.

The general population is quite capable of making sound decisions and it is insulting to suggest otherwise, but most people gain their information from the media, which is not always balanced or correct.

I would also be concerned about the wording of any referendum, because it is too easy to trigger a desired response.

Proponents of the system say an independent panel would be set up to vet questions, but if they operated anything like certain select committees, we'd be in trouble.

The biggest question I have comes from Jim Peron, the executive director of the Institute for Liberal Values. I seem to disagree with Peron more often than not, but he asked recently: "Would majority referendums have ended the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia? Would blacks in the American South have been given the vote if majority approval was required first?"

You've got to admit it is a good question. History suggests minorities have usually fared well in binding referendums. Australians, for example, voted overwhelmingly to give Aboriginals more rights way back in 1967; and in California, a referendum to prohibit homosexuals from teaching in public schools was soundly defeated.

But while I think New Zealanders, given the chance, would probably make wise decisions, and I like the idea of more checks and balances on politicians, Peron's question lingers in my mind.

There is certainly a problem: we have a Government bent on major social engineering, for which we will pay a price in years to come. But as to whether referendums are the answer, this juror remains very much undecided.

* Sandra Paterson, of Mt Maunganui, is a freelance journalist.