TOP Will Convene Citizens' Assemblies To End Political Gridlock
"Politics as usual isn't working. We're stuck in a wasteful cycle of pendulum politics where every left-right lurch after an election costs us," says TOP spokesperson David Webb. 'Every time Government changes, we endure economic uncertainty on par with 9/11. We just can't afford that anymore'.
Recent examples of political waste include $229 million on the abandoned Auckland light rail project, $300 million (and counting) for cancelled inter-island ferries and $297 million lost in (another) overhaul of New Zealand's polytechnics.
'The consistent decline in right track / wrong track polling shows us that people are losing trust in our political system. The Citizens' Voice is about turning that trend around by doing democracy differently – with everyday people leading on the hard issues, and politicians following' says Webb.
The Citizens' Voice policy has two components:
Citizens' Assemblies. Like jury duty but for policy, Assemblies bring together a random, representative, paid group of New Zealanders to learn about a complex issue, deliberate on solutions and make recommendations that Government must respond to. The process is designed to progress politically gridlocked, long-term issues like superannuation, housing, healthcare and infrastructure.
Parliamentary Commissioner for Citizens' Voice. An independent, non-partisan office gives the policy institutional backbone. The Commissioner will convene Assemblies, ensure they are fair and robust, use new digital democracy tools to amplify Citizens' voices and ensure Government engages seriously with Citizens' recommendations.
'Citizens' Assemblies are about trusting that everyday New Zealanders, when given information and time, can find common ground and set sensible, long-term policy directions on the issues politicians have failed on' says Webb.
Citizens' Assemblies have helped navigate tense, complicated issues internationally and in New Zealand. In Ireland, Assemblies broke decades of deadlock on marriage equality and abortion. In Auckland, an Assembly's recommendations on water infrastructure were adopted by the Watercare Board.
Two issues that could benefit from a Citizens' Assembly approach are New Zealand's Constitutional system and Superannuation.
'The Treaty Principles controversy highlighted the partisan, performative nature of Parliament. The Bill itself was short-sighted and divisive, but there is a real need for a national conversation on our Constitutional framework and the role of Te Tiriti. How we make that decision is as important as the decision itself - maybe more so' says Webb.
'Superannuation is on track to send New Zealand over the fiscal cliff – but it's a politically untouchable issue because it's a vote loser for politicians. A Citizens' Assembly would give Parliament the social license to finally act on Superannuation.'
'The problem with kicking the can down the road, is that eventually, you run out of road' says Webb. 'With challenges like AI and climate change coming at us, New Zealanders deserve a political system built around courage, co-operation and long-term thinking. We're launching the Citizens' Voice policy to do just that.'
A full overview of The Citizens' Voice policy - including FAQs, briefing papers and international examples - is available at www.top.org.nz/citizens-voice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Submissions Show Overwhelming Opposition To RSB
The Green Party is calling on Cabinet to stop the Regulatory Standards Bill, after only 19 of a total 208 submissions heard over the course of last week's submissions process supported the Bill. 'It couldn't be clearer that by a huge proportion, New Zealanders do not want this Bill passed,' says the Green Party's Regulation Spokesperson, Francisco Hernandez. 'Christopher Luxon and his Cabinet should see the writing on the wall here, listen to the people of New Zealand and put a stop to this deeply unpopular legislation. 'An emphatic 87% of submitters opposed the bill, and only 9% were for it. What's the point of all that consultation if it's going to be ignored anyway? 'After all those hours, all that engagement, all those expert submissions, to go ahead and pass this legislation shows this government's lack of interest in listening to expertise and experience. It's also hugely wasteful. 'Where are Seymour's yellow tape scissors now? Likely dulled by all the cuts being made to crucial public services. 'This Bill risks causing deep divisions, not least because of constitutionally significant ramifications for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and for Aotearoa, which is why the Waitangi Tribunal has warned it is a violation of the Treaty. 'As lawmakers we must listen to the overwhelming evidence, the mass of public opinion and expert advice. Stop this Bill now,' says Francisco Hernandez.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Thousands Of Teens Plead For Government To Take Action On Modern Slavery
This week more than 2,000 letters from New Zealand children and young people will be presented to MPs calling for urgent action on modern slavery. A delegation of World Vision youth Advocacy Ambassadors will present the letters to MPs on Parliament's Steps at 12.30pm on Wednesday July 16. National MP Greg Flemming and Labour MP Camilla Belich will be there to receive the submissions. The letters were written and collected at a series of World Vision New Zealand Youth Conferences and universities earlier in the year where thousands expressed their dismay at New Zealand's lack of laws to address modern slavery. World Vision Advocacy Ambassador 19-year-old Lily Murphy says New Zealand young people are passionate about the need for action on modern slavery. 'It is disgraceful that New Zealand has failed for so long to introduce any form of regulation against using modern slavery in Kiwi production lines. 'Young people are calling for a system where doing the right thing isn't optional, it's the law,' the Dunedin student says. Messages contained in the letters to MPs include: 'I don't want my belongings created by someone whose human rights are ignored.' 'As a country we have a responsibility to ensure that our goods and services are not supporting exploitation, to prevent abuse, and support victims of slavery.' 'New Zealanders deserve to know that our goods and services are not built on the backs of exploited people.' Fellow World Vision Advocacy Ambassador, 19-year-old Breanna Rickman, says she hopes MPs will take heed of the collective call from young people for a Modern Slavery Act. 'Young people all over New Zealand care about addressing modern slavery because they can see and understand the harsh effect it has on millions of people. 'We want the MPs to receive these letters and understand that there are so many people who are passionate about making this change for our country. This is a plea from New Zealand young people for our MPs to act as the representatives we voted them to be and back a Modern Slavery Bill,' she says. There is currently a Private Member's Bill from National MP Greg Flemming in the ballot while Labour was preparing to introduce a Modern Slavery Act when it was in Government. World Vision National Director, Grant Bayldon, who will also be at parliament for the handover of the letters, says there is cross party support for a modern slavery act. 'We know both Labour and National support some form of regulation to address modern slavery. Let's capitalise on that consensus! We need our MPs to put the politics aside and to come together to protect the millions who are affected by modern slavery,' he says. Notes: The following MPs will meet with the World Vision Advocacy Ambassadors as they present their letters: Rachel Brooking (Labour) Shanan Halbert (Labour) Ingrid Leary (Labour) Tamatha Paul (Green) Suze Redmayne (National) Tom Rutherford (National) Jane Tinetti (Labour) Ryan Hamilton (National) Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pati Maori) Miles Anderson (National) Menéndez March Ricardon (Green) Wedd Catherine (National) Willis Scott (Green) Camilla Belich (Labour) Greg Fleming (National)
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
ACT's campaign calculus to 'keep the govt' and its edge
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been - and remains - how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed - most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now re-emerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, leader David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's re-election. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. "It would be the easiest thing in the world... to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow," Seymour told supporters. "But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking." Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year - landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners - all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. "Our partners... abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles," he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to "keep this government". The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: "We need to keep these parties in power." These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 - which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to "remove any doubt" next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40% to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9% - a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode - trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the "gutsy" pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: "People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership." The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25% had a favourable view of ACT, while 47% were unfavourable - the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the "maturation of MMP". But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a "confidence-only" deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
