'The Battle for Democracy -
The Secret Ballot vs The Party System

A Report of an Investigation by Terry Gygar,
Northern Territory MLA

If 100,000 people (2.2% of the voters) petition for a Bill... it must be put to Referendum.

A 'formulated initiative' is an actual draft bill, and, if carried, immediately becomes law.

An 'unformulated initiative' is initially only a statement of principles. If it is carried the Parliament must pass a Bill incorporating those principles. When a petition has been presented the Parliament and Government may express an opinion concerning the proposal, or, if it supports the principles, but not the actual draft, may put forward a counter proposal, which is voted on at the same time. The voters may support either of the proposals or reject them both.

Initiatives are frequently used as a means of applying pressure to the Government and over half never get to the vote - the Government brings in the requested legislation of its own volition and the petition is then withdrawn. Of the over 130 initiatives supported by petition, over half have been, within 6 months, reflected in legislation by the government itself, and the petitions consequently withdrawn.

Conclusion: The Swiss initiative and referendum provisions seem to be a magnificent example of the benefits where the population have a say in the laws that govern them. Intangible results of this appear to be the high level of commitment and interest that the Swiss people have in good government and the confidence they have in their political system. Elections in Switzerland are very quiet, gentlemanly affairs; and everyone knows that a 'middle of the road' Government is virtually guaranteed.

Direct Democracy
(or Community Initiative Referendums)

By Bruce Chapman,
Centre for Initiative and Referendum, PO Box 268 Gympie Qld 4570.
Included by permission.

Direct Democracy:

DOES NOT seek to:

• Radically change our present governing systems.
• Remove the right of Parliaments to govern.
• Remove the incentive of elected members to show initiative.
• Slow the legislative process.
• Drive division between Parliamentarians and electors.
• Damage our so-called Westminster system.
• Be able to remove individuals from office.

BUT DOES:

• Enhance the accurate representation of Governments.
• Remove the undue influence that any non-elected individuals or groups may have over Parliaments.
• Have a genuine desire to see Parliament govern.
• Encourage Parliamentarians to use initiative.
• Remove some of the 'Bureaucratic' delays in the adoption of legislation.
• Achieve a better working relationship between electors and Parliamentarians.
• Improve the awareness for matters political within the community.
• Increase the involvement, with knowledge, of the community in the decision-making processes.
• Make decision making of Parliaments both easier, and, more representative.
• Allow for a greater input of ideas from the community.
• Help to make the community responsible for its decisions.
• Encourage debate; thereby airing points of view that otherwise may never be aired.
• Remove the 'heat' from genuine debate.
• Remove the 'pressure' of non-genuine groups and issues from the genuine Parliamentary processes.

It does not interfere with the political process. It enables the community to have control of a 'set of reins' to guide the Government back onto the track if it should deviate too far from the purpose for which it was elected, particularly if that deviation was caused by minority pressure groups or non-elected power-brokers, who were able to bring unreasonable or self-serving pressure to bear on Parliamentarians.

It also enables the people not to be rendered powerless when great changes are made between elections. The people must be allowed an orderly and meaningful way of expressing their concerns in a democracy at the relevant time. Three years later is often too late to undo what should have been easily prevented. The community should have the ability to have a greater input into decisions that affect it than it currently does.

2. HOW IT WORKS:

Should an individual or organisation feel that a change should be made to a proposed law, an existing law, or to introduce a new law, then he she or they must be able to address that belief.

STEP 1.

• With free legal help (where necessary), word a petition and gather 400 bona fide signatures of bona fide voters at the last election.
• Present this petition to the Electoral Commissioner for registration.
• Twelve or more petitioners are then appointed as custodians and promoters of the petition.

STEP 2.

• The promoters then gather signatures of bona fide voters at the last election to a MINIMUM of 2% per electorate in a majority of electorates (one third of them being in country areas?) including 2% of total voters. This provision guarantees that the issue is of genuine concern to a broad cross-section of the community, and removes the danger of 'city versus country' arguments.
• There is a maximum permitted period of 18 months to gather these signatures. During this time, monthly returns are made to the Electoral Commissioner showing the success or otherwise of the collection. This provision allows the public and Parliamentarian alike to assess the popularity of the petition issue. This assessment may well lead to Parliament addressing the issue before the referendum is actually held - a fact which would avoid the referendum, and enhance the democratic and Parliamentary process.

STEP 3.

• Having gained these signatures, the petition is then re-presented.
• The Electoral Commissioner certifies its qualification, and presents it to the Speaker of the House.
• The petition is then deemed to be a call for a referendum on that issue.

STEP 4.

• Parliament is informed of the referendum call, and may act on its contents in such a manner as to satisfy the petitioners' demands.
• Failure by Parliament to make the necessary changes to Legislation before the next poll shall see the referendum proceed.

STEP 5.

• The referendum to determine the issue shall be held IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEXT ELECTIONS. N.B. This action makes the cost of holding such a referendum extremely low. Additionally the population is at the polls anyway, and history has shown that, given the chance, people will have a say on issues which affect them.
• The Government IS NOT responsible for the publication of the 'for or against' arguments, but may put its case if it so decides. Equally, any or every organisation or individual may do likewise.
• The time between the petition's presentation and holding of the ballot at election, or poll time, will be well used for open debate and comment. This will allow the community to become aware of the real facts from all sides of the argument.

STEP 6.

The result of the referendum shall be determined by the support or otherwise of a simple majority of voters in a simple majority of electorates, PLUS, a simple majority of all voters. This we call a 'representative majority' which:

• ensures cross-section support,
• ensures that it was indeed a genuine issue,
• avoids the 'country versus city' (?) arguments, and
• is consistent with the Federal Constitutional referendum requirements,
• also shows Parliament where the support for the issue has been demonstrated - a tool very handy to Parliament and voters alike.

[Chapman does not enlarge here on his concern for the inadequate representation of country interests in the Senate.]

STEP 7.

• On approval of the electors at referendum, the Bill is presented to the Governor (-General) for assent. N.B. Provision is made also for the holding of 'emergency' referenda between elections. The same requirements apply for this action as above, except that a higher percentage would be required to call it - say 5% instead of the 2% of total voters at the last election required for the election-timed referenda.
• We also encourage the Government of the day to use its rights to conduct referenda on issues of its choice.

GENERAL

With this process of Initiative and Referendum we believe:

• the noisy minorities will have to get more genuine support for their arguments,
• the wishes of the majority will be heard,
• the Parliamentarians will know exactly where they stand with the public, and know what is required of them,
• a venue for utilising community common sense will be opened,
• a re-emergence of the principle of Government of the People, by the People, and for the People will be widely welcomed,
• that much of the undue influence exerted by non-elected power brokers will be able to be challenged in a non-party political manner,
• that the Government that installs this system will cause an upsurge in the acceptance of politicians within the community.

We believe that ours is a fair and genuine proposal because:

• it allows only the genuine issues to be addressed and resolved by a representative majority.
• governments at all levels will benefit by our Initiative and Referendum proposal,
• it creates an atmosphere of team work between the communities and themselves, instead of one of distrust and cynicism.
• it will allow the community equal rights with governments, i.e., the equal right of initiating a referendum.

CONCLUSION

It is extremely difficult to put the case for the Electors' Initiative and Referendum in its entirety, on paper. There are many and diverse advantages and benefits which would flow from the adoption of this proposal.

We hope that the vision of what this concept would do for democracy is a positive one - a vision that will see genuine people seeking election to office, and the self-interested individuals and power brokers becoming unable to dictate what we, the community, will have. I commend this concept and means to you, and hope that it will open the door for further discussion and negotiation. Contents