citizens' initiated referenda

Voters have a few minutes of illusory power when we shuffle into the voting booth once every 3 or 4 years. Then, for the years of their incumbency a politician has no obligation whatsoever (other than moral and that’s a laugh) to vote according to how she/he campaigned and was elected, or how their constituents might subsequently ask them to vote. Waiting 4 years to vote them out is a very blunt instrument indeed. And, anyway given the party system of candidate selection we’ll get someone equally useless.

After years of campaigning I wonder what’s the point of collecting thousands of signatures on petitions and running rallies and meetings? Massive efforts from so many dedicated campaigners are now effectively ignored. Old growth logging, the Tamar Valley pulp mill, the channel deepening issue, De-Sal, North-South pipeline, and of course SPA have all had well run campaigns aimed at engaging our local MPs and government to at least consider alternatives, but unpopular and unnecessary policies and projects just keep rolling on and over us.

During the Brumby regime Planning Minister Madden ignored the finding of two Planning Panel Inquiries, which recommended against the development of Bastion Point Mallacoota and the Crib Point Bitumen plant. Using “Ministerial discretion” he approved both projects as “shovel ready” - A perfect example of how the party system, representative democracy, and underpinning administrative processes is failing us on so many social and environmental issues.

As Cr. Rosemary West said at the Planning Backlash Rally on 10th June 2009, “Were any of us asked whether we wanted 5 million people in Melbourne by 2030 (now 2020)?” We weren’t asked, and in the case of population growth we weren’t even told it was going to happen. It just happened.

At the very least, perhaps our elected representatives should be required to conduct statistically robust polls in their electorate to guide their voting on issues before them in parliament. Independent Victorian MP Craig Ingram did this on the 2009 abortion reform debate, as he had no firm view. His electorate overwhelmingly supported reform so that’s the way he voted. Other MPs of course proceeded with a “conscience” vote without any obligation whatsoever to consult or inform their electorate. As it stands, for most of the time that is precisely what most of them do – ignore almost everyone that voted for them!

All levels of government in Australia have powers to initiate referenda on any issue. Unfortunately under existing arrangements, in Australia a referendum will only be held if a government or local council determines that a poll should be held on an issue (thus I support Citizens Initiated Refenda). During the 2000s the issue of whether to adopt daylight savings was decided via referendum in WA. In Victoria, local government area referenda are regularly conducted, under the auspices of the Victorian Electoral Commission on the relatively piddling issue of liquor licenses in areas designated as “dry” in the early 20th Century. Clearly it is possible – just not desirable from a politician’s perspective.

What’s more, in the 21st Century we are relying on a voting system from the horse and buggy era - queuing up at the local school to have our names manually ticked off the role. The recent WA senate vote losing incident exemplifies this with millions of taxpayer funds now being spent on another senate election in WA just because 1300 bits of paper were lost. My brother contacted the VEC a few years ago to ask about the prospect of electronic voting. The topic was greeted enthusiastically, with the officer saying it is often discussed, and all that is needed is the legislation. It would be relatively simple to organise electronic voting, as most people now either have internet access via a home computer or mobile phone, or can access a computer via a public library. Electronic voting could be managed by using a unique ID number such as tax file or Medicare numbers. An electronic system could also present the ‘for and against’ argument equitably. It need not be compulsory to vote on every issue, but perhaps it could be organised so that a statistically significant sample is required to decide any outcome.

The way things are at present, we will be fighting many unwanted policies and proposals in future and if nothing changes we will just keep on being ignored and it’s a dead cert we will get what we DON”T want - the environment will be trashed, and those of us running campaigns to protect the places we love will get very depressed and worn out for no sum gain.

I’m still willing to believe that if given the facts, most people are capable of making a reasonable decision and like Tim I’d rather live by a decision made by my fellow citizens than one arrived at by a few politicians who in the main have been corrupted by the Murdoch Press, the corporates and developers (Kelvin Thomson and the handful of Independents being the few exceptions).

In November 2010 Floridians will vote on an amendment to allow affected citizens to vote on proposals for urban development. Such a constitional amendment is desperately needed in Australia, particularly in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, where Governments in the pockets of developers habitually over-ride the objections of local governments and local communities to new urban developments.

The following letter Michael P. Aston, was published on 9 Jan 10 on the web site of Florida Hometown Democracy.

Amendment 4 hot issue for November

In his January, 2010 article Tom Patton said if Hometown Democracy Amendment 4, passed it would bog down the system and thousands of business decisions would be subject to a vote.

He praised politician’s ability to correctly handle comprehensive plan changes but not questioned his own and all citizen’s ability to make knowledgeable decisions on such matters.

That thinking is apparent in all those opposing Amendment 4. They consistently rant about the need to have thousands of changes made to our comprehensive land use plans and about citizen inabilities.

But why do we need thousands of changes to our plans if they are already state-mandated and created by local officials with input from the citizens, then fully reviewed and approved by all parties?

Why would citizens not have the interest, time, or mental capacity to review and decide on a developer’s comp plan change request that could negatively affect their lives or increase their taxes for infrastructure and services?

If citizens lack these abilities is it a foregone conclusion that our local officials possess them and will rightly apply them, without yielding to pressure from lobbyists or special interests? Florida’s history of development doesn’t support that conclusion.

Mr. Patton implies all growth would stop if Amendment 4 passed. But, according to Florida Hometown Democracy, "Current land-use plans already allow development for over 100 million people in Florida which is more than 5 times the current State population ….even if not one more land-use plan change is approved".
He also predicted the inevitable "politicians are in the pockets of developers" cry. He is sadly correct because of powerful lobbyist firms like Associated Industries of Florida.

They have tremendous sums of money behind them, employ previous political office holders and try to influence our legislator’s vote in an effort to secure the best interests of their clients. Senator John Thrasher worked there prior to reentering politics.

Amendment 4 will be a hot issue for November. It will trigger a massive, expensive campaign by developers, realtors, and everyone dependent upon them to defeat it for their own self interest. The smoke-and- mirrors effort to deceive people has already begun, and their voices will get louder as we approach the vote.

Citizens need truth to make an intelligent decision about this issue. They’ll find it at www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com

Michael P. Aston, Neptune Beach, FL

See also: Florida Hometown Democracy's Amendment 4: A battle for the remains of Florida. of 12 Dec 09 in eyeonmiami.blogspot.com. Floridians for a Sustainable Population.

CIR Australia is a not for profit, non-political organisation that is actively recruiting for members and supporters.

The following interview with the President of CIR, Mr Ron Evans, was conducted by David Astin and was originally published in Issue No. 17 (Summer 2008/09) of The Independent Australian magazine.

See also: "A New look at Citizens' Initiated Referenda in Australia and elsewhere" of 3 Sep 09. This article was originally posted as a comment to that article.

All About CIR Australia

Finally, some good news for supporters of democracy. A concerted effort has been launched Australia wide to educate, organise and promote Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR), with the formation of CIR (Inc.) Australia. CIR is a process whereby ordinary citizens can compel their governments to hold a referendum on any issue that THEY feel is sufficiently important.

David Astin interviewed the President of CIR, Mr Ron Evans, about their aims.

D.A: So CIR Australia has been formed. Why?
R.E.: For many years there have been attempts to institute Citizens Initiative and Referendum, sometimes with an added rider of Recall, but they have all failed as they have been attached to small 'independent' political parties standing at elections with no real prospect of gaining political power. CIR Australia is different.

D.A.: How so?
R.E.: CIR Australia was formed by a group of people, most with over 20 years of campaigning for CIR in various forms in both State and Federal spheres. Their combined experience has led to the founding of CIR Australia as a completely independent organisation, beholden to no political party, Left, Right, or Middle. We consider ourselves to be a purely educational organisation. By joining CIR Australia, a person commits themselves to learning about CIR and helping to spread the word about how CIR can improve, not take over, our political landscape.

D.A.: Can you briefly explain how CIR could work in Australia?
R.E.: While not totally set in concrete our proposal at State level is as follows: (Federally, it may need a slight variation but basically the concept is the same)

1) With free legal help an individual or organisation word a petition and gather 400 bona fide signatures from the last election and present to the Electoral Commissioner for registration. A minimum of 12 petitioners are then appointed as custodians and promoters of the petition.

2) The promoters with help, then gather signatures of at least 2% of bona fide voters who voted at the last election over a period of, say, 12 months to demonstrate support.

3) Having gained the required number of signatures the petition is then presented to the Electoral Commissioner who certifies its qualifications. The petition is then presented to the Speaker of the House, and it is then deemed to be a call for referendum on the issue. If the government fails to act within, say, 6 months, then the matter will proceed to a vote of all electors.

The referendum will then be put to the people either Federally, State wide or through Local Council depending on the need and the issue. For example, fencing controls would not be considered a Federal issue, nor would immigration be considered a State concern.

D.A.: When would the referendum be held?
R.E.: There are two obvious choices here and it will be up to the government that installs CIR to choose. One is to have the referendum held in conjunction with a State or Federal election. This would save on costs, but would confuse the voters as to whether the question put is a politically party motivated issue. The other option would be to have a certain day, say the 21st of July, and have that as referendum day. Be there one or 10 referendum questions that need answering they could all be sorted in a couple of minutes on the appointed day each year.

D.A.: You mentioned cost. Surely holding a referendum is expensive?
R.E.: You would be surprised how LITTLE it costs to hold a referendum. Approximately $6.00 per person of voting age would cover all the expenditure. Isn't that worth having your say in the running of the country?

D.A.: Historically referenda get voted down?
R.E.: It is true that in Australia, where only the government can call for a referendum, it has held 38, only 8 of which have passed. When the issue was clear and was not tied to some nefarious means of giving the government of the day more power, referenda are passed overwhelmingly.

D.A.: What about overseas?
R.E.: In 1974, Italy held a referendum on the issue of divorce laws. While the people might have disapproved of divorce as such on moral or religious grounds, they nevertheless approved of it on the grounds of legal necessity.

In the last 100 years or so, the Swiss have voted on about 300 issues, approving of approximately 50% of issues placed before them.

In the United States of America, CIR, often called proposals, are held in conjunction with elections in 23 States and the District of Colombia and over 20 States are campaigning for its introduction.

Many other countries, including Spain and Austria, have the advantage of CIR to increase their populations involvement in the decision making of their governments. We deserve this too.

D.A.: Won't this tie us up year after year with endless referendums?
R.E.: Not really. If international experience is anything to go by, once all the major or contentious issues have been voted on and resolved, there will most likely be very few referendums required. However, the facility is there if needed.

D.A.: So what's the next step?
R.E.: We intend to advertise extensively around Australia to increase our membership. This will hopefully give us the funds to expand our educational efforts to inform the public and warn against the inevitable scare tactics that will be run by those who are happy with the status quo. We are beholden to no other group and our only funding comes from membership fees and donations. We want to expand throughout Australia, and commeth the day when CIR is installed around Australia; we will simply fade into the background, knowing that Australia has become a more democratic country, with the people in control of their own government and destiny. People should visit our website www.CIR-Australia.net and find out for themselves how easy this improvement to our democratic system would be to initiate.

We need CIR now!

D.A.: Thank you Ronald. It looks like you might have some busy times ahead. I certainly wish you and the organisation all the best with your efforts. Let's hope that the people of Australia embrace CIR as a fitting addition to our system of government.

Postscript: How a CIR could end the criminalisation of abortion in Queenland

The Courier Mail story "Two thirds support abortion law change" of 15 Sep 09 caused me to write the following letter to that paper:

Dear Editor,

The solution to the lack of sufficient numbers in Parliament to have our abortion laws reformed is simple: Citizens' Initiated Referenda.

With CIR's the will of two thirds of Queenslanders, who support the legalisation of abortion ("Abortion support rising", 15 Sep), will quickly prevail.

When the referendum is held, Anna Bligh's asset fire sale legislation should also be voted upon.

James Sinnamon

Many ordinary people and committed activists are despairing of parliamentary democracy in its current form but say “What else can we do?” So many things just happen without us feeling that we have had any say at all or that our concerns have been completely ignored. Many of our friends are deeply disheartened. We say the community can no longer rely on our elected representatives to make objective and reasonable decisions on our behalf and we have to do something different. At the moment it is democracy in name only. We really have no control over our elected representatives from one election to the next, and we no longer have the time to be patient with them for 4 years at a time.

Here are our major points:

* It is clear that politely attending EES hearings, submitting thoughtful and well researched responses, running peaceful rallies, letter writing campaigns and using the law to try to protect the environment has become a useless exercise. Indeed it’s only function has perhaps become to furnishing government with its “community consultation” obligations. Blue Wedges for example has tried all of the above for the last 5 years, including collecting around 60,000 signatures on two petitions, 10,000 letters to MPs, and demonstrating to a Parliamentary Inquiry that a project has no economic credibility, but still the development juggernaut rolls on and over us. Government has managed to turn what appears to be detailed “community consultation” into a box ticking exercise. So, rather than continue to merely engage in government’s paradigm, we need to start the conversation about a different paradigm for decision making on important issues.

* Politicians have made themselves increasingly inaccessible and impervious to their constituents’ views – they are now mostly irrelevant to most of us most of the time. They are only responding to the growth lobby and a few other noisy, demanding, irrational but powerfully connected minority groups. Our current parliamentary system, where for the 4 years of their incumbency, and where a politician has no obligation whatsoever to vote according to how she/he campaigned and was elected, or how the majority of their constituents might subsequently ask them to vote is no longer serving a useful purpose for most of us.

* Old growth logging, the Tamar Valley pulp mill, the channel deepening issue, De-Sal, North-South pipeline, and of course Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) have all had well run campaigns aimed at engaging our local MPs and government to at least consider alternatives. The unpopular and unnecessary policies and projects just roll on.

* Most recently Planning Minister Madden has even ignored the recommendations of two EES Panel Inquiries, which recommended against the development of Bastion Point Mallacoota and the Crib Point bitumen plant. It’s obvious that parliamentary democracy and its underpinning administrative processes no longer serve us on so many social and environmental issues. As Cr. Rosemary West said at the Planning Backlash Rally on 10th June, “Were any of us asked whether we wanted 5 million people in Melbourne by 2030 (now 2020)?” We weren't asked, and in the case of population growth we weren't even really told what was going to happen.

* All levels of government in Australia have powers to initiate referenda on any issue. With the host of unrepresentative decisions being made by people elected by us perhaps it is time to look at alternative decision making processes.

* Unfortunately under existing arrangements, in Australia a referendum will only be held if a government or local council determines that a poll should be held on an issue. In Victoria we have provision for referendums but unfortunately the decisions are not binding on government.

* Referenda are already in use in a number of countries around the world, including Switzerland and many states in the USA, and Australia, where in recent times referendums have been conducted in Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria. Some countries have Citizen’s Initiated Referenda (eg. California USA) and some, like Australia only conduct a referendum if initiated by a council or government.

* The state-wide issue of whether to adopt daylight savings was recently decided via referendum in WA, as well a local issue in the City of Box Hill regarding liquor licenses. It would be relatively simple to organise voting on federal, state and local issues, as most people now either have Internet access via a home computer or mobile phone, or can access a computer via a public library. Electronic voting could be managed by voters using of a unique ID number such as tax file or Medicare numbers (no sillier than in the 21st Century still queueing up at the local school to have your name manually ticked off an electoral role).

* Referendums would need to be properly constituted, conducted by the VEC or the affected LGA. A properly constituted poll would be required to equally fund the for and against arguments, so that people could be properly informed, not marketed to. Candobetter Editor comment: Would this over-ride the mainstream press, which distorts every electoral issue by producing political options that it wants by restricting scope of argument? I suppose that what is being suggested here would at least help to combat commercial press propaganda.

* An electronic system could also present the ‘for and against’ argument equitably. It need not be compulsory to vote on every issue, but perhaps it could be organised so that a statistically significant sample is required to decide any outcome. I am sure that it is not beyond our capacity to devise a suitable system.

* Citizen’s Initiated Referenda is an ideal alternative to the present system and is currently operating in various democracies worldwide. (This is not the rather odd “People’s Mandate” idea promoted by some, which aims to collect signatures from over 50% of eligible persons to then invoke powers which have purportedly existed since Magna Carta. Blue Wedges sought legal opinion on the People’s Mandate and were advised, by the now President of the Court of Appeal that the People’s Mandate has no legal standing)

* CIR on the other hand is legally robust and already operating around the world. A CIR is determined to be conducted if 10% of eligible voters petition government to conduct a poll on a specific issue.

* CIR would have the benefit of providing direct democracy for all citizens and could eventually enable the abolition of state governments, which largely duplicate federal government bureaucracy and cost billions of dollars.

* New Zealand has CIR and has recently conducted two polls. One on the issue of whether parents should be allowed to use corporal punishment on their children and one on raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The result of the corporal punishment poll determined that parents should be allowed to smack their children, thus opposing the legislation that the government has just adopted, banning corporal punishment by parents. Unfortunately in NZ, CIR outcomes are not binding on government. To be effective of course CIR outcomes must be binding on government.

At the very least, perhaps our elected representatives should be required to conduct statistically robust polls in their electorate to guide their voting on issues currently before them in parliament. We understand Independent Victorian MP Craig Ingram did this on the recent abortion reform debate. His electorate overwhelmingly supported reform so that’s the way he voted. Other MPs of course proceeded with a “conscience” vote without any obligation whatsoever to consult or inform their electorate. As it stands, for most of the time that is precisely what most of them do – ignore almost everyone that voted for them!

The way things are at the moment, we will be fighting many unwanted policies and proposals in future and if nothing changes we will just keep on being ignored. From now on, when campaigning for the retention of something special, or against something dreadful, amongst all the points we make, why not take the opportunity to remind people that the conventional and proper methods for community input are being ignored by those “in control”, so we need to start thinking about a different way forward – otherwise it is a dead cert we will get what we DON”T want, the environment will be trashed, and those of us running the campaigns will get very depressed and worn out for no sum gain.

A component of all our current and future campaigns should be the message that “community consultation” is off the rails and heading for the cliff. We need somehow to take back control from those who purport to represent us, but are doing nothing of the sort. Otherwise we will just get steamrollered time and time again. We might not make a dent straight away, but sooner or later we just might if we keep giving it a go, and those who come after us will thank us!

We are still willing to believe that if given the facts, most people are capable of making a reasonable decision. If we think otherwise, and don’t trust our fellow citizens then we don’t believe in democracy either, and are just as bad as those we are currently criticising.

Written by Jenny and Len Warfe of the Blue Wedges organisation.