¹ The research for this paper was conducted largely in the Department of Political Studies, University of Auckland, with comments and criticism from Helena Catt, to whom I am eternally grateful. My thanks also for the useful comments from the two anonymous referees.

² Bernard Manin, ‘On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation’, Political Theory, 15:3 (1987).

³ Vernon Bogdanor, The People and the Party System: The Referendum and Electoral Reform in British Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981.

⁴ Michael Saward, The Terms of Democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1998, p.84.

⁵ Arrow, Kenneth, Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn, New York, Wiley, 1963 Google Scholar; van Parijs, Philippe, ‘Justice and Democracy: Are They Incompatible?’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14:2 (1996), pp. 101–17.Google Scholar

⁶ Uhr, John, ‘Testing Deliberative Democracy: The 1999 Australian Republic Referendum’, Government and Opposition, 35:2 (Spring 2000), pp. 206–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Dryzek, John discusses some examples in Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁸ Beedham, Brian, ‘A Survey of Democracy: “Happy 21st Century voters”’, The Economist, 21 12 1996 Google Scholar; Budge, Ian, The New Challenge of Direct Democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1996, pp. 95–100 Google Scholar; Cronin, Thomas, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1989, p. 123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linder, Wolf, Swiss Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies, New York, St Martin’s Press, 1994, p. 143 Google Scholar; Parkinson, John, ‘Deliberative Democracy and Referendums’, Dowding, K. M., Hughes, J. and Margetts, H. (eds), The Challenges to Democracy, London, Macmillan,Google Scholar forthcoming.

⁹ Simpson, Alan (ed.), Referendums: Constitutional and Political Perspectives, Wellington, Department of Politics, Victoria University of Wellington, 1992 Google Scholar. For a short history which suggests links between antipodean direct democracy and the Progressive movement in the United States, see Hughes, Colin, ‘Australia and New Zealand’, in Butler, D. and Ranney, A., Referendums around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, AEI Press, Washington DC, 1994.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Catt, Helena, ‘The Other Democratic Experiment: New Zealand’s Experience with Citizens’ Initiated Referendum’, Political Science, 48:1 (1996), pp. 29–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Church, Stephen, ‘Crime and Punishment: The Citizens’ Initiated Referenda to Reform the Criminal Justice System and Reduce the Size of Parliament’, in Boston, J., Church, S. Levine, S. and McLeay, E. (eds), Left Turn; The New Zealand General Election of 1999, Wellington, Victoria University Press, 2000, pp. 184–99Google Scholar; Wehrle, Gabriela, ‘The Firefighters’ Referendum: Should Questions Arising from Industrial Disputes be Excluded from Referenda Held under the Citizens’ Initiated Referenda Act 1993?’, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 27 (1997), pp. 273–99.Google Scholar

¹¹ J. Uhr, ‘Testing Deliberative Democracy’, pp. 189–91.

¹² Lijphart, Arend, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1984, p. 16.Google Scholar

¹³ Palmer, Geoffrey, Unbridled Power, Wellington, Oxford University Press, 1979.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hughes Hughes, C., ‘Australia and New Zealand’, pp. 154–8 Google ScholarPubMed; McRobie, Alan, ‘Final and Binding: The 1993 Electoral Referendum’, in Vowles, and Aimer, P. (eds), Double Decision: the 1993 Election and Referendum in New Zealand, Occasional Publication No. 6, Department of Politics, Victoria University of Wellington, 1994, pp. 101–2.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a general discussion of the rights of Maori in New Zealand’s democracy, see Mulgan, Richard, Democracy and Power in New Zealand, Auckland, Oxford University Press, 1984 Google Scholar; the key work on the history of the treaty is Claudia Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, Wellington, Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press, 1987; for a discussion of government efforts to address treaty issues in the 1980s, see Kelsey, Jane, A Question of Honour?: Labour and the Treaty 1984–89, Wellington, Allen & Unwin, 1990.Google Scholar

¹⁶ S. Church, ‘Crime and Punishment’, p. 185; Bonnie Laxton-Blinkhorn, ‘Halfhearted Democracy: A Critical Examination of the Operation of Citizens Initiated Referenda in New Zealand’, thesis, University of Auckland, 1996, p. 42; G. Wehrle, ‘The Firefighters’ Referendum’, p. 275. Data on the decline in trust in politicians is presented in Vowles et al., Jack, Towards Consensus?: The 1993 Election in New Zealand and the Transition to Proportional Representation, Auckland, Auckland University Press, 1995 Google Scholar, ch 7.

¹⁷ Royal Commission on the Electoral System, ‘Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System’, Wellington, 1986, p. 176.

¹⁸ Kingdon, John, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston, Little, Brown, 1984, p. 174.Google Scholar

¹⁹ New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, ‘Homosexual Law Reform Bill’, Wellington, 1985, Vol. 461, p. 3534.

²⁰ New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, ‘Homosexual Law Reform Bill’, Wellington, 1986, Vol. 472, p. 2596.

²¹ Coalition of Concerned Citizens, ‘What is the “Coalition of Concerned Citizens”?’, The Coalition Courier, October 1985, p. 1; Coalition of Concerned Citizens, ‘Constitutional Issues — the Public Referendum’, Coalition Courier, June 1988, p. 3.

²² B. Laxton-Blinkhorn, ‘Half-hearted Democracy’, pp. 43–53.

²³ Royal Commission on the Electoral System, op. cit., pp. 175–6.

²⁴ B. Laxton-Blinkhorn, ‘Half-hearted Democracy’, pp. 50–3.

²⁵ New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill’, Wellington, 1992, Vol. 522, pp. 6749–7134; vol. 538, p. 17965.

²⁶ David Butler and Austin Ranney (eds), Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, Washington DC, AEI Press, 1994; California Secretary of State, Ballot Initiatives: the Ins and Outs of Getting an Initiative on the California Ballot, 1998, PDF document, available from http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_h.htm (accessed August 1999); California Voter Foundation, internet site available from: http://www.calvoter.org/ (accessed July 1999); Catt, 1996, op. cit.; Cronin, 1987, op. cit.; Winston Crouch et al., California Government and Politics, Englewood Cliff, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1964; Kris Kobach, 1993, op. cit.; Linder, 1994, op. cit.; Magleby, 1984, op. cit. Note that New Zealand does not possess an equivalent of the Swiss facultative ballot or the Californian referendum.

²⁷ Magleby, David, Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984, p. 148.Google Scholar

²⁸ Boston, Jonathan, Levine, Stephen, McLeay, Elizabeth and Roberts, Nigel, ‘Courting Change: The Role of the Judiciary in Altering an Electoral System’, Public Law Review, 8:4 (12 1997), pp. 229–43.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Parkinson, ‘Deliberative Democracy and Referendums’, for a discussion of the policy-framing process in the Swiss context.

³⁰ Catt, Helena, Democracy in Practice, London, Routledge, 1999, p. 16.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill’, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, Wellington, 1992, Vol. 522, pp. 6704–5.

³² Ibid., p. 6711; Vol. 537, p. 17609.

³³ Graham, Hon. D., ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill’, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, Wellington, 1992, Vol. 522, p. 6705.Google Scholar

³⁴ H. Catt, ‘The Other Democratic Experiment’, pp. 33–4.

³⁵ Royal Commission on the Electoral System, 1986, op. cit., p. 180.

³⁶ Hon D. Graham, ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill’, p. 6708.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 6703.

³⁸ Fletcher MP, C., New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill’, Wellington, 1992, Vol. 522, p. 6713.Google Scholar

³⁹ Hon. D. Graham, personal communication to B. Laxton-Blinkhorn, 1996.

⁴⁰ H. Catt, ‘The Other Democratic Experiment’; Ministry of Justice, The General Election 1999, Wellington, available from http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/ 2000/election_e9_1999/; Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda’, Parliamentary Bulletin 94:10–99:23 (1994–99). The question wording given in this Table is the final wording determined by the Clerk of the House, not the original wording of the sponsor. In most cases there is very little difference, but the original text of the question, from the Free New Zealand Party Society is worth noting for comparison. The original text was: ‘Should government let New Zealanders have democracy by referendum where any individual or group can submit an idea and if we vote for it, then anyone can submit opinions which get numbered so we can list what we agree with and list what we disagree with, then the results are sent to four independent committees who create four separate laws and we vote for the most suitable one?’ The turnout figure is percentage votes cast over the number of registered electors.

⁴¹ California Secretary of State, election returns, available from http:// www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

⁴² W. Cooper MP, quoted in H. Catt, ‘The Other Democratic Experiment’, p. 36.

⁴³ These examples are discussed in more detail in S. Church, ‘Crime and Punishment’.

⁴⁴ ‘Busting Burglars’, Letters to the editor, The Press, Christchurch, 17 November 1999; Victoria Clausen, ‘Penal Reformers Seek Poll Rejection’, The Press, Christchurch, 19 November 1999.

⁴⁵ S. Church, ‘Crime and Punishment’.

⁴⁶ S. Church, ‘Crime and Punishment’, op. cit.; Royal Commission on the Electoral System, op. cit., pp. 126–7; ‘Acting on Referendums’, The Press, Christchurch, 30 November 1999, editorial; Bernard Orsman, ‘Yes Vote Likely for Referendums’, New Zealand Herald, Auckland, 25 November 1999.

⁴⁷ Hofstetter et al., Richard, ‘Information, Misinformation and Political Talk Radio’, Political Research Quarterly, 52:2 (1999), pp. 354–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘The Left’s Last Frantic Gasp’, National Business Review, Auckland, 8 October 1999, editorial.

⁴⁹ S. Church, ‘Crime and Punishment’, op. cit., Table 18.4, p. 198.

⁵⁰ ‘Acting on Referendums’, The Press, Christchurch, 30 November 1999, editorial.

⁵¹ S. Church, ‘Crime and Punishment’, p. 194.

⁵² H. Catt, personal communication.

⁵³ H. Catt, ‘The Other Democratic Experiment’, p. 33.

⁵⁴ Electoral Commission of New Zealand, available from http:// www.elections.govt.nz

⁵⁵ California Secretary of State, Ballot Initiatives: The Ins and Outs of Getting an Initiative on the California Ballot, Sacramento, 1998, available from http:// www.ss.ca.gov (accessed August 1999).