Winston Peters launched my first book on direct democracy at a public meeting. We stood together, arguing that New Zealanders deserved real power to control their government. I believed in him. He believed in the cause. Or so I thought.
Now he’s calling for a referendum to abolish the Māori seats in Parliament — and doing it for all the wrong reasons, using all the wrong methods. It’s a perfect example of why politicians should never control the referendum process.
This isn’t democracy. It’s democracy dressed up to serve political ambition.
The Problem With Politician‑Initiated Referendums
I’ve spent years advocating for direct democracy in New Zealand. I’ve written two books about it. What I’ve learned is one thing very clearly: there is a world of difference between citizens using referendums to check government power and politicians using referendums to advance their electoral prospects.
When politicians control the process, referendums become political weapons.
History shows this. In 1969, French President Charles de Gaulle called a referendum on decentralisation and Senate reform. He’d used referendums before to strengthen his political position. This time, he tied the outcome to his own leadership, promising to resign if he lost. It wasn’t really about policy — it was a personal vote of confidence.
The French public called his bluff. They voted no. He resigned the next day.
That’s what happens when politicians can call referendums whenever they like. They’re not seeking genuine public input. They’re playing games with democratic tools.
Peters is doing the same. This isn’t a thoughtful conversation about electoral representation or constitutional reform. It’s an attempt to energise a political base before an election he may not survive.
How Referendums Should Actually Work
If we want real direct democracy, referendums must serve two clear purposes.
1. Constitutional changes require public approval.
Major shifts in how a country is governed should face the ultimate accountability test: a binding public vote. Even without a codified constitution, this principle protects the foundations of our system.
2. Citizens must have the power to veto laws.
A proper veto referendum allows citizens to collect signatures and force a binding vote on legislation Parliament has already passed. If the public rejects it, the law dies.
That’s real people power — the ability to stop a government that has lost touch with those it serves.
Notice what’s missing? Politicians calling referendums. That’s deliberate.
Politicians already control the legislative agenda. They already dominate public debate. Giving them the power to call referendums whenever it suits them creates a dangerous imbalance.
Direct democracy is meant to check political power, not expand it.
Why Referendums on Racial Issues Are Wrong
Even if we accepted that politicians should be able to call referendums, this particular referendum is fundamentally wrong.
Referendums should never be used to decide the rights of a minority group. Even in a healthy democracy, minority rights are protected precisely because they are not subject to majority approval. Direct democracy is a tool for checking government power — not for determining whether a minority group should retain representation that exists for their benefit.
Peters argues that because Parliament created the Māori seats, Parliament can remove them. Technically true. But using a referendum to do it doesn’t make it more democratic — it makes it more dangerous.
If You’re Going to Do This, Do It Properly
If a referendum on the Māori seats must be held, democratic legitimacy requires one simple rule:
Only those on the Māori electoral roll should vote on it.
The Māori seats exist to provide representation for Māori who choose that roll. They directly affect Māori voters’ representation — and no one else’s.
Letting the general population vote on whether Māori should keep their dedicated representation is like letting the entire country vote on whether Auckland needs a mayor. It’s not their decision to make.
If you want legitimacy, ask the people affected.
Of course, Peters won’t do this. Because this isn’t about democracy. It’s about winning votes from people frustrated with Te Pāti Māori’s behaviour in Parliament.
Peters argues that Māori are already “over‑represented” in Parliament, pointing out that Māori make up around 13–14% of the adult population but hold roughly 26% of the seats in the current Parliament. That figure includes both Māori‑electorate MPs and Māori MPs elected through general seats and party lists.
But even if someone accepts his premise, it still doesn’t follow that the wider population should vote on whether Māori keep their dedicated representation. Minority rights aren’t determined by whether a group has the “right” number of MPs — and they certainly shouldn’t be decided by people who are not part of that minority.
What Winston Used to Understand
The frustrating part is that Peters once understood all this. When he launched my book on direct democracy, he recognised that real people power meant constraining government, not giving politicians new tools to manipulate public opinion.
He understood that direct democracy is a brake on governments that had lost their way — a way for ordinary New Zealanders to say “no” when their representatives stopped listening.
Now he’s doing exactly what we warned against: using the language of democracy to pursue a political agenda, weaponising a tool that should belong to citizens, not politicians.
And he’s doing it on an issue that should never be put to a popular vote.
The Real Veto New Zealand Needs
New Zealand desperately needs genuine direct democracy:
What we don’t need is politicians calling referendums to settle political scores or rescue their electoral prospects.
Peters is 79. He’s been in Parliament on and off since 1978/79. He’s been a kingmaker multiple times. And current polling suggests New Zealand First may struggle to return in 2026.
This referendum call isn’t about principle. It’s about survival.
If he truly cared about democratic reform, he’d be fighting for the Veto referendum and the Binding Citizens’ Initiated referendums — the very tools he once championed.
Instead, he’s proving exactly why politicians cannot be trusted to control the referendum process.
Democracy is too important to be used as a political weapon.
Winston Peters once understood that. Somewhere along the way, he forgot.
Steve Baron is a New Zealand-based political commentator and author. He holds a BA with a double major in Economics and Political Science from the University of Waikato and an Honours Degree in Political Science from Victoria University of Wellington. A former businessman in the advertising industry, he founded the political lobby group Better Democracy NZ. https://stevebaron.co.nz
Tony M says:
Steve, you’ve hit the nail on the head about politicians weaponising referendums and it reminds me of how some of our bigger wine corporations will suddenly champion “local consultation” when it suits their expansion plans, but ignore community input when it doesn’t. In our family business, we’ve learned that genuine consultation means listening even when you don’t like what you hear, and it can’t be about timing things for your own advantage. Winston’s approach here feels like he’s more interested in stirring the pot than actually solving anything – referendums should bring communities together around shared solutions, not divide them for political gain. The French example you mentioned is spot on; when leaders make it about themselves rather than the issue at hand, it usually backfires spectacularly.
Bob G says:
I’m more concerned about the cost to ratepayers than the democratic theory. Every time these political games get played out, it’s us mugs who foot the bill – referendum costs, extra administrative expenses, and all the associated bureaucratic waste that follows. Peters should know better than to push for expensive political theatre when councils across the country are already struggling with basic infrastructure needs. If we’re going to have referendums, they need to be citizen-initiated and come with a proper cost-benefit analysis, not just another way for politicians to chase votes at our expense.
Murray says:
Steve raises an important distinction that I’ve tried to emphasise to countless students over the years,the difference between genuine democratic participation and political theatre. In my experience, referendums work best when they emerge from genuine public demand rather than being deployed as electoral strategy. The de Gaulle example is particularly apt here; my students used to be surprised when I explained how even in established democracies, leaders can manipulate supposedly democratic processes for personal gain.
Winston’s timing does seem rather convenient, doesn’t it? While the Māori seats are certainly a legitimate subject for constitutional discussion, framing this as a referendum now feels more like an attempt to mobilise voters than to engage in thoughtful democratic reform. We’ve seen this pattern before in New Zealand politics – complex constitutional questions reduced to simple yes/no answers when what’s really needed is nuanced public dialogue and proper civic education about the issues at stake.
Stu says:
Been serving drinks to politicians and their supporters for two decades, and I can tell you they all sound noble until election time rolls around. Had a bloke last week telling me how Winston’s “finally standing up for ordinary Kiwis” while his mate at the next table was saying it’s all just vote-grabbing theatre. Truth is, they’re probably both right – Peters might genuinely believe in the cause, but the timing stinks of political convenience.
Josh says:
This really hits home for me as someone who’s just starting to engage with politics properly. I get that referendums sound democratic on paper, but you’re right Steve,there’s something dodgy about politicians being able to call them whenever it suits their agenda. Like, shouldn’t we the people be driving these conversations rather than having them handed down from above?
Linda J says:
Steve, you’ve hit on something I saw repeatedly from my time on council – the difference between genuine consultation and political theatre is usually obvious to those paying attention. The referendum process, when weaponised like this, becomes just another political stunt rather than meaningful democratic engagement.
What concerns me most about Peters’ approach isn’t necessarily the topic itself, but the timing and methodology. From my experience, when politicians rush constitutional issues without proper select committee processes or public submissions, it’s rarely about good governance. The French example you’ve cited is spot on – de Gaulle learned the hard way that voters can see through referendums designed primarily to shore up political support.
That said, I do think there’s a genuine conversation to be had about how we manage referendums in this country, but it needs to come through proper parliamentary procedure, not as election-year populism. The irony is that a well-designed citizen-initiated process might actually produce more thoughtful outcomes than what we’re seeing here.
Steve Baron says:
I’d push for the veto referendum myself if I had to choose. I feel it’s the best part of the Swiss system and has been sparingly used.
Greenie says:
Steve’s absolutely right about the dangers of politician-controlled referendums – we’ve seen this playbook before and it rarely ends well for genuine democratic engagement. What worries me most is how this kind of weaponisation undermines public trust in participatory processes that we desperately need for tackling big challenges like climate adaptation. Here in Nelson, we’ve been working on genuine community-led consultation around coastal management, and it’s amazing what happens when people feel their input is actually valued rather than being used as political ammunition. The irony is that well-designed citizen-initiated processes could actually help us build the social consensus we need for the difficult transitions ahead – whether that’s constitutional reform or the rapid decarbonisation our communities are crying out for.
Karen says:
As a mum trying to explain our democratic system to my kids, this whole situation with Winston is really frustrating. How do I tell them that referendums are supposed to give ordinary families like ours a voice when politicians are clearly just using them as election tactics? What does this mean for families trying to teach our children about genuine democratic participation versus political game-playing? Steve, you’re absolutely right that there’s a huge difference between citizens checking government power and politicians advancing their own agendas – but how do we actually get to that citizen-led system when the politicians control the process?
Olivia C. says:
The wine corp comparison is gold. That’s exactly what’s happening here. Winston’s clearly just positioning things to suit his own timeline rather than actually giving communities space to think it through properly. Referendums work when people feel like they’ve genuinely had a say, not when they’re being rushed into something that benefits one person’s political calendar. Hard to build anything real on that foundation.
Priya Sharma says:
The bit about referendums being weaponised for timing rather than genuine problem-solving strikes hard, because once you start using them tactically, you erode the trust that makes them useful in the first place. Worth watching whether this sets a precedent for future politicians to treat them the same way.