Submission on

Introduction

The Referendums Framework Bill (126-1) is a direct threat to democratic fairness and must be rejected outright. Instead of ensuring free and fair referendums, this Bill hands full control to the government, blocks citizen-initiated votes, and enables political manipulation of referendum outcomes.

This Bill does not constitute meaningful electoral reform—it represents an assault on voter rights.

We demand the full withdrawal of this Bill and call for the development of an independent and democratic referendum framework.

Fundamental Democratic and Legal Concerns

1. The Government Should Not Control Referendum Wording (Clause 8)

   • Clause 8(1)(b) allows the Government, via Order in Council, to determine the wording of referendum questions and voting options.
   • This creates a clear conflict of interest, as the government in power can frame questions in a way that influences public opinion toward a desired outcome.
   • The principle of electoral neutrality, upheld under the Electoral Act 1993, is violated by allowing the executive branch to dictate referendum language.

   RECOMMENDATION: Remove Clause 8(1)(b) entirely—governments must never have the power to control referendum wording. Instead, referendum questions must be drafted and approved by an independent body, such as the Electoral Commission, to prevent political bias.

2. Restriction of Referendums to General Elections (Clause 9)

   • Clause 9 states that referendums can only be held during the next two general elections (2026 & 2029), after which the Bill automatically expires in 2031.
   • This prevents urgent or significant referendums from being held independently and grants the government full control over referendum timing.
   • The limitation raises serious concerns about whether this Bill is being used to push a government-driven agenda rather than establishing a fair, permanent referendum system.

   RECOMMENDATION: Allow standalone referendums at any time, based on public demand, legislative need, or constitutional requirements.

3. Blocking the Public from Holding Referendums is Undemocratic (Clause 8(1)(a))

   • The Bill explicitly excludes citizens-initiated referendums, which are governed under the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000.
   • This blocks the public from initiating referendums on important issues and leaves referendum power solely in the hands of the government.
   • Section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 upholds the right to participate in democratic processes—this Bill actively restricts that right.

   RECOMMENDATION: Introduce a citizen-initiated referendum mechanism, allowing referendums if 5-10% of registered voters sign a petition.

4. First-Past-the-Post Voting Will Rig Referendum Outcomes (Clause 11)

   • Clause 11 mandates First-Past-the-Post (FPP) voting, allowing referendums to pass without majority support.
   • In a multi-option referendum, an outcome could win with as little as 30-40% of votes, even if most voters oppose it.
   • The Electoral Act 1993 allows for proportional and ranked-choice voting, which are more representative and democratic.

   RECOMMENDATION: Replace FPP with a preferential voting system (e.g., ranked-choice voting) to ensure a majority-supported outcome.

5. Referendum Vote Counting Delays Will Undermine Trust (Clause 19)

   • Unlike general elections, Clause 19 prohibits a preliminary count of referendum votes.
   • This will cause unnecessary delays in referendum results, reducing transparency and public trust in the process.
   • The Electoral Act 1993, Section 174, mandates preliminary vote counts for elections—referendums should follow the same process.

   RECOMMENDATION: Implement preliminary vote counting for referendums to ensure timely and transparent results.

6. Government Power to Validate Irregularities (Clause 35)

   • Clause 35 allows the Government (through the Governor-General) to validate procedural irregularities, unless a court determines they materially affected the result.
   • This opens the door for election fraud or procedural errors to be legally excused, allowing unfair referendums to stand.

   RECOMMENDATION: Only an independent body (Electoral Commission or courts) should have the power to validate or nullify referendums as is standard in maintaining checks and balances in democratic processes.

7. High Threshold for Challenging Referendum Results (Clause 28)

   • Clause 28 requires at least 200 electors to petition the High Court to challenge a referendum result.
   • This sets an excessively high barrier to accountability, making it difficult for individuals or smaller groups to raise legitimate concerns.
   • The Electoral Act 1993, Section 229, allows individual election disputes—referendum challenges should have similar accessibility.

   RECOMMENDATION: Lower the threshold to 50-100 electors and streamline the legal challenge process.

8. No Protections Against Online Misinformation and Foreign Interference

   • The Bill lacks provisions to combat online disinformation, fake news, and foreign interference in referendum campaigns.
   • Given the rise of digital election manipulation, this is a serious legislative omission.

   RECOMMENDATION: Introduce regulations on social media political ads, transparency rules, and counter-misinformation policies.

Conclusion: Reject This Bill in Its Entirety

The Referendums Framework Bill is a dangerous precedent that must be rejected outright. If passed, it will erode voter rights, enable government manipulation, and strip citizens of democratic control.

We urge the Select Committee to listen to the people, uphold democratic integrity, and throw out this Bill in its current form..

References

• Electoral Act 1993 (NZ)
• New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 12 (Right to Vote)
• Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000
• International Standards on Referendum Conduct (Venice Commission, 2007)