The Clerk of the House has approved an absurd question:

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

As Dave at Big News says, the answer is “No”. Why? Because what the New Zealand public really wants is the right to veto egregious legislation. Requiring Parliament to enact citizens initiated referendums will create a minefield of problems. What sort of problems? Well look at the 1995 referendum on Firefighters:

“Should the number of professional fire-fighters employed full-time in the New Zealand Fire Service be reduced below the number employed in 1 January 1995?”

Sounds good right – we didn’t want all those firefighters to lose their jobs. And 88% of people voted “no” when asked the question. But imagine the problems we would’ve had if the Government had enacted the question as law: the number of firefighters would’ve been frozen at the number employed in 1995. That would’ve caused real problems in, say, 10 years because population growth requirements would’ve meant it would be illegal for the Fire Service to hire more firefighters than it had on 1 January 1995.

That’s why a veto is much more practical. It gives the right to voters to get rid of legislation they don’t like or want (such as the Electoral Finance Act or section 59 amendment), which is the real issue.