Constitutional referendums

There is no requirement for a referendum to enact constitutional change in New Zealand. Referendums were held in 1992 and 1993 to decide the nature of electoral reform in New Zealand. Many groups advocate approval of constitutional reforms by referendums; the Republican Movement supports a referendum on whether New Zealand should become a republic.

There are frequent calls for the use of referendums to decide other constitutional matters, rather than by regular Acts of Parliament. In 2003 the Fifth Labour Government replaced the Privy Council as New Zealand's highest court of appeal with a new Supreme Court, despite calls from New Zealand First, National and ACT for a referendum to be held on the issue. In 1950 the abolition of the Legislative Council by the First National Government was done by Act of Parliament; with additional members of the Legislative Council (MLC) appointed to ensure approval by the upper house, the suicide squad.

Liquor licensing referendums

In New Zealand, alcohol licensing has historically been decided by referendum. The first of these were compulsory local licensing referendums, held in 1894 and then with each main parliamentary election between 1896 and 1914. Local licensing referendums were eliminated after 1914, apart from 'local restoration polls' to legalise liquor sales in 'dry' districts. In 1910 a referendum on national prohibition of alcohol was introduced, and held in conjunction with every general election from 1911 to 1987 inclusive (except 1931 and 1951). An extra referendum on prohibition was held on 10 April 1919. From 17 December 1919 the additional option of state purchase and control of liquor (i.e. nationalisation) was added to the ballot. The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 abolished the national liquor referendum. Local restoration polls were still held in areas that were still 'dry', but the last three, Mount Eden, Mount Roskill and Tawa, all became 'wet' in 1999. There have been two referendums on pub closing times.

Other referendums

The government may call referendums on any issues on which it wishes. These will usually be on issues on which the government is split. For the 1997 referendum on retirement savings, the decision to hold it was part of the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. For the 2020 referendum on Voluntary Euthanasia, it was originally meant to be passed as a bill of parliament but New Zealand First threatened to vote it down if it wasn't considered to be voted by the people during the 2020 election. The 2020 Cannabis referendum was based on the Confidence and Supply agreement between the Labour Party and the Green Party.

More information Date, % Voters ...

Date	% Voters	Issue	Result
9 March 1949	54.3	Allow off-course betting	68.0% in favour
3 August 1949	63.5	Compulsory military training	77.9% in favour
5 September 1997	80.3	Compulsory Retirement Savings Scheme	91.8% against
20 November – 11 December 2015	48.2	New Zealand flag, first stage	50.58% for Silver Fern (Black, White and Blue) after 4 counts
3–24 March 2016	67.8	New Zealand flag, second stage	56.6% for retaining the existing flag of New Zealand
17 October 2020	82.24	Legalizing the sale, use, possession and production of cannabis	51.17% against
17 October 2020	82.24	Allowing voluntary euthanasia on certain conditions	65.91% in favour

Close

Firefighters

The first citizens initiated referendum was held on 2 December 1995. The question "Should the number of professional fire-fighters employed full-time in the New Zealand Fire Service be reduced below the number employed on 1 January 1995?" aimed to elicit a "no" response^{[citation needed]}. Turnout was low as the referendum was not held in conjunction with a general election. Just over 12% voted "Yes" and almost 88% voted "No".^[4]

1999 election

At the 1999 election two referendums were put before voters. One was on whether the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from 120 to 99. Electors overwhelmingly voted in favour of the proposal, with 81.47% voting for this proposal. However, there were no moves to amend the Electoral Act 1993 in line with this result until 2006 when a bill was introduced by New Zealand First MP Barbara Stewart to reduce the size of Parliament to 100. The bill passed its first reading, 61 votes to 60 and was referred to Select Committee. The Select Committee returned recommending the bill to not be passed, citing reasons including public misconception on the MMP voting system, population growth, and international comparability.^[5] The bill was subsequently voted down 112 to 9 at its second reading.

The other referendum held in 1999 asked "Should there be a reform of our Justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?". This measure passed by 91.78%. There was some debate over the phrasing of the referendum, as the question actually contains five separate questions; voters could agree with some, but not with others.^[6]

Parental corporal punishment

Following the submission of a petition on 22 August 2008, the Clerk of the House verified to Parliament that the threshold for a CIR had been reached. Supporters were hoping for the referendum to be held alongside the 8 November general election, but it was decided by Parliament to hold the referendum by postal ballot between 31 July and 21 August 2009.

The question asked was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Voter turnout was 56.1 percent. While 87.4 percent of votes answered 'no',^[7] the question drew widespread criticism from the public, parliament, and even the Prime Minister John Key for being a loaded question and for the use of the value-judgement 'good'.^[8]

Opponents of citizens initiated referendums

The perceived lack of implementation of successful referendums has led to calls for such referendums to be made binding on the government of the day, similar to the direct democracy said to exist in Switzerland. ACT New Zealand, Family First New Zealand, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Kiwi Party all advocate binding referendums.^{[citation needed]} However, Kiwi Party President Larry Baldock failed to submit enough signatures for a petition that might have led to a non-binding referendum on whether or not binding citizens referenda should be introduced after being granted permission to circulate a petition calling for that innovation, so the status quo remains. Although the Kiwi Party applied for deregistration, the cause has been taken up by the Conservative Party of New Zealand and its leader, Colin Craig.

By contrast, GayNZ.com has run articles strongly critical of the CIR lobby, as well as expressing concerns that CIRs could be abused to strip vulnerable minorities of their legislative protections, as has occurred frequently with referendums against same-sex marriage in the United States and similar proposals that target illegal immigrants in that country. In some New Zealand media outlets, the Minaret controversy in Switzerland has also been cited as one current example of anti-minoritarian abuse of the 'citizens' referendum process.^[9][10][11]

Even amongst conservatives, the issue has become contentious. The Maxim Institute has announced its opposition to binding citizens referendums, citing the adverse fiscal management consequences that have ensued in the state of California in a recent paper from Richard Ekins, a University of Auckland legal academic.^[12] Former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key also opposes binding referendums on fiscal grounds, noting that California's contradictory tax cap and public spending referendums have made state fiscal management chaotic.^[13] However, a key problem with that argument is that ballot initiatives only make up 2% of the Californian state budget, once Proposition 98 is removed from the equation (Proposition 98 locks in education spending which probably would have been spent anyway and had always occupied about one-third of the Californian budget).^[14]

During 2009, there was additional criticism from prominent New Zealand legal academics, such as Andrew Geddis and Bridget Fenton at Otago University. They argue that CIRs are no substitute for more deliberative processes within the existing framework of representative democracy, such as joining political parties, protest marches, voting within general elections and parliamentary select committee submissions.^[15]

Table of petitions and referendums

The following table lists those petition questions lodged with Clerk of the House from 1994 to 2019. ^[16] Questions lodged since then are not included. Note that some questions may have been worded so that "no" was the desired response by the proposer.

The 1999 referendums were held in conjunction with the 1999 general election, which is likely to have played a role in the high proportion of voters.