A Deliberative New Zealand Democracy – Citizens' Assemblies and Controversial Lawmaking

BY LEVI PRUDEN

I Introduction

Representative democracies have suffered from a decline in meaningful voter engagement.[1] Many nations have experienced political climates marred by mistrust and polarisation, meeting complex issues with either inaction or divisive aggression (as under the Trump administration).[2]

This has renewed interest in practices of deliberative democracy – a political school of thought that advocates for greater input from average citizens in the discussion and debate surrounding policy decisions. Effectively, it is about bringing people deeper into political discussion to achieve compromise and ensure their voices are heard on issues where this is needed most, often by empowering marginalised voices that face structural political barriers.[3]

One of the most innovative deliberation tools in recent years has been citizens’ assemblies (CAs), representative bodies of citizens brought together to discuss and produce policy recommendations for the government.[4] Across the globe, their usage has varied greatly, including minor usage in New Zealand lawmaking. However, facing its own array of complex and controversial political issues, New Zealand is yet to fully embrace the potential value of CAs in a modern democracy. This article explores CAs' framework, history, and potential application in a modern New Zealand democracy.

II What is a citizens’ assembly?

CAs are comprised of a representative sample of the population arranged by a facilitator (i.e. the government), achieved through random selection across strata to ensure that minority groups are represented. The value of this process relies on the fairness and accuracy of who comprises the assembly and the active investment of both its members and the wider public in the deliberation.

The assembly is given an area of focus or concern (often a question that they are to provide perspective and assistance on), and expert information and stakeholder input are provided. This includes support by academics, relevant practitioners and policy professionals, supplemented by groups such as industry associations and indigenous communities. It is crucial that said information is balanced, in that it accurately captures a broad array of evidence and perspectives on the matter at hand.

CAs often feature lengthy deliberation, often over several days, where equal participation is encouraged and structured, respectful discussion is facilitated. The focus is on building consensus, compromising, and actively engaging members of the wider community. The ultimate objective of this is for the assembly to produce policy recommendations to aid government decisions.[5]

III Brief history of citizens’ assemblies in New Zealand

New Zealand is not unfamiliar with CAs. In 2022, Watercare – our largest water utility service – facilitated a CA on the future of Auckland’s water source, working closely with Auckland City Councillors to do so.[6] Auckland City Council facilitated an even larger assembly on public transport in 2023,[7] with Wellington City Council seeking a wider report on resource allocation that same year.[8]

However, whilst New Zealand has utilised referendums to address big picture and controversial issues (notably in 2020), CAs have not been employed in the nation at a higher level.[9]

IV International practices and their application in New Zealand

A Local government use

New Zealand’s localised use of CAs is comparable to processes used by regional governments in Germany. Here, contentious matters such as urban planning and resourcing have been shown to significantly benefit from localised knowledge and community input, particularly as these decisions affect and often disgruntle  residents.[10] The trend of New Zealand councils implementing deliberative processes serves as a partial remedy to the shortcomings of representative democracy.[11]

B Climate change

Climate change has been a very commonly deliberated issue in CAs. In 2019, France created the Citizens Convention for Climate in response to public criticism of a proposed fuel tax to consider alternative measures for reducing emissions.[12] Deliberation took into consideration the various ways in which climate change policy affected people’s lives, such as transportation, food, and housing. Significantly, the Government endeavoured to undertake 146 of the 149 proposals produced by the CA.[13] Similar CAs include the UK Climate Assembly and the ‘Global Assembly’ (in support of the United Nations).[14]

Effectively, climate change is something that very meaningfully impacts people but has also had polarised responses to lawmaking efforts. In New Zealand, governments have faced criticism for their inaction, memorably being sued by law student Sarah Thomson for their lack of reporting on emission reduction targets.[15]

Simultaneously, policies to combat climate change have also been criticised for lacking consideration of both wider consequences and actual efficacy. Since the Government declared climate change an emergency in 2020, issues have repeatedly been raised around efforts to reduce New Zealand fossil fuel operations, given the resulting economic harms and continued importation of high-emission substitutes.[16] Later governments have used this as justification to amend climate action entirely.[17] In New Zealand’s environment-driven economy, CAs are a meaningful pathway to building consensus and avoiding unproductive backsteps on climate action.

C Constitutional change

One area that New Zealand has historically deferred to the public is our electoral system, including multiple referendums on the FPP-MMP transition. In the 2000s, CAs across Canada on electoral reform were extremely useful for achieving deeper civic engagement, using a model that followed deliberative democratic theories closely.[18] Following New Zealand’s 2011 Constitutional Referendum, constitutional scholar Janine Hayward argued that the Canadian CA model might be better at enlightening and engaging citizens than a referendum, particularly for capturing the nuances of complex constitutional issues and as a check on the constitutionally unbound sovereignty of Parliament.[19] Furthermore, Hayward contends that CAs educate people on issues they might otherwise be politically apathetic towards and uninformed on, including electoral reform.[20]

Currently, the most relevant focus of New Zealand constitutional reform is Te Tiriti. The recent voting down of the Treaty Principles Bill – following widespread outrage during its tenure in Parliament – could be seen as the democratic triumph of a unified voice outside of election time.[21] However, the Bill can equally be considered a source of division and uncertainty, with attempts to push it through in Parliament being marred by the Government’s lack of openness to criticism, and the existence of major gaps in public knowledge on the significance of Te Tiriti itself.[22] CAs could facilitate the constructive conversation and education that is vital to Aotearoa’s constitutional issues.

D Kaupapa Māori deliberative model

Meaningful usage of CA in Aotearoa New Zealand relies on the platforming of a clear Māori voice. It was noted of the Watercare assembly that future use of these deliberative processes within New Zealand needs to be driven by Te Tiriti and Kaupapa Māori and include a Māori perspective as part of the expert advice provided.[23] This distinct voice is particularly relevant for issues that affect kaitiakitanga, such as resource management (as with Watercare) and climate change.

Victoria Associate Professor Emily Beausoleil paints a clearer picture of what it means to be driven by Te Tiriti.[24] She argues that adapting the traditionally Western “citizens’ assembly” to a New Zealand context requires reimagining this through the lens of Māori values and governance practices, emphasising this as key to Māori engagement and empowerment.[25] Where Parliament has arguably failed to empower the Māori voice, a grassroots deliberation tool centred around Māori practices may create new pathways.[26]

E Inflexible lawmaking for controversial issues

The fixation of law around contentious issues – particularly law that is constitutional in nature – is where CAs might force governments to positive steps.

In Ireland, CAs have led to significant progressive policy changes, notably facilitating the successful 2018 referendum legalising abortion and overturning constitutional law prohibiting this. Related studies also linked Irish deliberative democracy to convincing its largely conservative Catholic population to vote in favour of marriage equality.[27] The Irish Citizens’ Assembly has served as a case study for broadening political centrism, particularly where deliberative citizens change their opinions.[28] At a minimum, CAs and referendums in Ireland have worked cooperatively to increase awareness and discussion around controversial issues.[29]

Although New Zealand lacks the fixation of a formal ‘constitution’, unwavering sociopolitical attitudes remain a universal roadblock to change.[30] Deliberation by everyday people may be the tipping point for mobilising practical action.

F Foundational lawmaking role

At the most ambitious level, CAs play a central role in law-making. Belgium has arguably taken this centrality to a new level. In 2019, the German-Speaking Community of Belgium created what is effectively a permanent CA, embedded into the institutional structure of its regional parliament.[31] This assembly works alongside elected officials, proposing topics for debate, scrutinising policy, and deliberating on complex issues in regular cycles. Its continuity has been designed to enhance civic engagement and democratic legitimacy, a model which can lessen democratic deficits in other jurisdictions.[32]

Comparatively, New Zealand relies largely on heavily centralised Parliamentary power. Despite occasional referendums, as well as local government and select committee processes, many democratic mechanisms often suffer from low and shallow engagement.[33] Longer-term and fully integrated CAs maintain engagement outside of election cycles and may also be a useful democratic experiment for restructuring government power (relevant to constitutional questions and co-governance).

V Concerns and considerations for implementation

A Functionality

For practical implementation at a higher level, a clear framework of who, when, and how CAs would need to be created.

On this first question, Parliament is likely the ideal choice as this gives CAs the most lawmaking legitimacy, being consistent with constitutional notions of parliamentary sovereignty.[34] The incentive for Parliament to facilitate often and well is clear, insofar as the implementation of direct democracy (such as through referendums) has been shown to correlate strongly with increased voter mobilisation.[35]

Secondly, CAs at this level would likely be reserved for big picture and controversial issues of the type and character already discussed. However, New Zealand’s local councils seem to have found significant use for deliberative democracy. Local assemblies, smaller in scale and therefore easier to facilitate, may be more frequently used and a good way of getting citizens to engage with local New Zealand democracy (where participation has been declining in recent years).[36]

Thirdly, effective democracy relies on the deliberation of a genuinely representative sample. This is significant as CAs must contend with the reality that deliberation by a small group cannot be considered fully legitimate democracy.[37] However, methods to achieve this representation can be derived from good statistics and engagement with overseas processes. Furthermore, although CAs are still limited in how many people they directly engage with, this process, particularly under a New Zealand-specific Te Tiriti-led model, is still productive deliberation that would not necessarily occur otherwise.

B Limited effectual power

The most ambitious models of law-altering CAs may be inoperative in New Zealand. Despite our lack of a formal constitution, the principle of Parliament’s exclusive lawmaking power is deeply ingrained both structurally and optically.[38] Although CA reports may be non-binding, they could still create change and awareness, much like the Waitangi Tribunal has and continues to do in its non-binding interactions with the Crown.[39]

Nonetheless, concerns around the Government ignoring reports remain valid. During the implementation of citizens’ climate change proposals in France, the role of citizens in the lawmaking process became severely diminished and the legislation later passed was significantly diluted from what had been proposed.[40]

However, this article contends that CAs still often facilitate productive, democratic outcomes. The first contention is that it objectively looks very bad when a government commits to a process intended to represent the collective will of the people it governs only to ignore the result (at least completely). The second contention is that even if CA power is practically limited and arguably nominal, this still facilitates discussion and awareness that otherwise was not there. Therefore, although instances where CAs fail to directly influence lawmaking still occur, they are both relatively infrequent and still may be democratically productive in other ways.

C Use/purpose

Major sceptics of CAs may question how much the average citizen can meaningfully know or contribute to lawmaking. This is relevant given that much of the preface of and evidence used in this article points towards lower democratic engagement and political apathy.[41] However, it cannot be said that a democracy where this continues to be the case can ever be truly effective. What can at least be suggested of citizens, as Hayward argued, is that they have the capacity to be politically engaged, and CAs may be what facilitates education and reengagement regarding significant political issues in the first place.[42] Furthermore, although people altering their views might not be a direct product of deliberation, evidence suggests that democratic deliberation can persuade in more indirect, subtle ways (and is necessitated to a degree for building consensus).[43]

Alternatively, democratic optimists might instead criticise that citizens already do influence the lawmaking process in meaningful ways. The first is on voting, although this article has already discussed why this may not be effective democracy and why CAs require more political nuance from citizens. The second is through external means, such as protesting and court action. However, CAs can be said to be more constructive and moderate, and less straining on participants, than these external means that facilitate an increasingly divisive New Zealand.[44] To the extent that these methods will continue to exist, the unique benefits of CAs should justify their usage.

VI Conclusion

The Government of modern Aotearoa New Zealand faces many policy crossroads that, have created a level of controversy and uncertainty. However, these areas of lawmaking have never lacked debate or concern around their development. Areas such as criminal justice, climate change, and the constitution inspire deep and often difficult to sway views in the many people they affect and mobilise. CAs facilitate thoughtful conversations across the borders of polarised disputes between everyday people. Going forward, their use would be a step towards a more united and engaged people, truly governed by and for themselves.

[1] Russell J Dalton The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality (online ed, Oxford Academic, Oxford, 2017).

[2] Matt Viser “Defiant Trump signals full speed ahead on divisive policies” The Washington Post (online ed, Washington, 5 March 2025).

[3] André Bächtiger and others (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (1st ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018) at 835.

[4] Roger Berkowitz “Revitalizing Democracy: Citizen Assemblies, Citizen Power, and Spaces of Freedom” in Vlasta Jalušič and Wolfgang Heuer (eds) What Kind of Government? (Springer, Cham, 2024) 143.

[5] Wolfgang Merkel, Filip Milačić and Andreas Schäfer “Citizens' assemblies: New ways to democratize democracy” (1 September 2021) FES Democracy of the Future <https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/wien/18489.pdf>.

[6] Watercare “We invite 40 Aucklanders to recommend the region’s future water source” (press release, 7 July 2022).

[7] Anne Bardsley and others The future of transport in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland: Analysis of a deliberative forum with Aucklanders (Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures, November 2023) at 3-5.

[8] Wellington City Council “Citizens’ Assembly has its say on shaping the city’s future” (press release, 2 November 2023).

[9] End of Life Choice Act 2019, s 2; and Cannabis Referendum Order 2020.

[10] Peter C Dienel “Planning Cells: The German Experience” in Khan Usman (ed) Participation beyond the ballot box: European case studies in state-citizen political dialogue (UCL Press, London, 2010) 81.

[11] Brigitte Geissel “How to Improve the Quality of Democracy? Experiences with Participatory Innovations at the Local Level in Germany” (2009) 27 GP&S 51.

[12] Louis-Gaëtan Giraudet and others ““Co-construction” in Deliberative Democracy: Lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate” (2022) 9(207) Humanit Soc Sci Commun 1 at 9.

[13] Louis-Gaëtan Giraudet and others, above n 12, at 17.

[14] Stephen Elstub and others Evaluation of Climate Assembly UK (online ed, Newcastle University, Newcastle, 2021); and Fiona Harvey “Global citizens’ assembly to be chosen for UN climate talks” The Guardian (online ed, London, 5 October 2021).

[15] Thomson v Minister for Climate Change Issues [2017] NZHC 733, [2018] 2 NZLR 160.

[16] “Govt officials estimate cost to NZ of ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration at $7.9 billion” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 24 September 2018); and Jordan Bond “NZ imported more than a million tonnes of 'dirty' coal last year” Radio New Zealand (online ed, New Zealand, 14 July 2021).

[17] Crown Minerals Amendment Bill 2024 (82-2); and Eloise Gibson “Shane Jones uses Indonesian coal to defend government policy again - is he right?” Radio New Zealand (online ed, New Zealand, 2 October 2024).

[18] Joseph Gershtenson, Glenn W Rainey Jr and Jane G Rainey “Creating Better Citizens? Effects of a Model Citizens' Assembly on Student Political Attitudes and Behavior” (2010) 6 JPSE 95 at 96.

[19] Janine Hayward “Citizens’ Assemblies and Policy Reform in New Zealand” (2013) 9 PQ 70 at 71.

[20] Janine Hayward, above n 19, at 74.

[21] Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill 2024 (94-1); and Kathryn Armstrong “New Zealand rejects rights bill after widespread outrage” BBC News (online ed, London, 10 April 2025).

[22] Kassie Hartendorp “Why the Treaty principles bill had to go down” E-Tangata (online ed, New Zealand, 13 April 2025).

[23] Tatjana Buklijas and others Citizens’ assembly on the next source of water for Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland: A case study of deliberative democracy in Aotearoa (Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures and Watercare, March 2023) at 3-5, 17-19.

[24] Emily Beausoleil “Decolonizing Deliberation: Experiments from Aotearoa New Zealand” (2025) 58 CJPS 147.

[25] At 161-167.

[26] Kelly Ng “Three Maori MPs face suspension over 'intimidating' haka” BBC News (online ed, London, 15 May 2025).

[27] Johan A Elkink and others “The death of conservative Ireland? The 2018 abortion referendum” (2020) 65 Elect Stud 102142.

[28] Jane Suiter, David M Farrell and Eoin O’Malley “When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly” (2014) 37 Int Political Sci Rev 198.

[29] Colm D Walsh and Johan A Elkink “The dissatisfied and the engaged: citizen support for citizens’ assemblies and their willingness to participate” (2021) 36 Ir Political Stud 647.

[30] Peter K Hatemi and Rose McDermott “Give Me Attitudes” 19 Annu Rev Political Sci 331 at 336.

[31] David Van Reybrouck “Belgium’s democratic experiment” (25 April 2019) Politico <https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-democratic-experiment-citizens-assembly/>.

[32] Hadrien Macq and Vincent Jacquet “Institutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: The origins of the first permanent citizens’ assembly” (2023) 62 EJPR 156 at 157.

[33] Mark E. Warren “Citizen Participation and Democratic Deficits: Considerations from the Perspective of Democratic Theory” in Joan DeBardeleben and Jon H Pammett (eds) Activating the Citizen Dilemmas of Participation in Europe and Canada (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009) 17 at 20-23.

[34] Andrew Geddis “Parliamentary government in New Zealand: Lines of continuity and moments of change” (2016) 14 Int J Const Law 99 at 101-102.

[35] Todd Donovan, Caroline J Tolbert and Daniel A Smith “Political Engagement, Mobilization, and Direct Democracy” (2009) 73 Public Opinion Quarterly 98.

[36]  Department of Internal Affairs “Local Authority Election Statistics 2022” (2022) Department of Internal Affairs <https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Local-Elections-Local-Authority-Election-Statistics-2022>.

[37] John Parkinson “Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy” (2003) 51 Political Stud 180.

[38] Andrew Geddis, above n 34, at 102.

[39] The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; and Jamie Tahana “Fifty years on, New Zealand’s tribunal upholding Māori rights faces a turning point” The Guardian (online ed, London, 17 April 2025).

[40] Adrián Galván Labrador and Christos Zografos “Empowerment and disempowerment in climate assemblies: The French citizens' convention on climate” (2024) 34 Environ Policy Gov 414 at 421-422.

[41] Russell J Dalton, above n 1.

[42] Janine Hayward, above n 19, at 73-74.

[43] Gerry Mackie “Does democratic deliberation change minds?” (2006) 5 Pol Phil Econ 279.

[44] Anusha Bradley “How citizens' assemblies could resolve New Zealand's toughest debates” Radio New Zealand (online ed, New Zealand, 27 December 2023).