A people's forum for New Zealand
Status: Draft · Last reviewed: 29 September 2026
Elections give people a choice of representatives, but most people rarely get time, support, and access to evidence to work through a national policy question together. We propose a people's forum of 100 randomly selected members to examine a defined issue, discuss the options, and vote on recommendations.
Ireland's Citizens' Assemblies offer a useful model: members selected to reflect society hear evidence, question speakers, deliberate, and vote. Their recommendations are advisory, with government and parliamentary responses made public. New Zealand would need to design its own version, including a meaningful role for Māori and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This idea at a glance
- The problem: Most people have little chance to examine a complex national choice with time, evidence, and support.
- The proposed change: Convene 100 randomly selected members for a defined policy question, then require a public response to their voted recommendations.
- Cost and funding: Recruitment, member payments, access support, facilitation, and independent administration would need public funding. A budget is not yet estimated.
- Who benefits: The public, decision-makers, and communities affected by long-term policy could gain a better-tested set of options.
- Who bears a cost or risk: A group of 100 can never represent every view; weak recruitment or a biased agenda could make the result less trustworthy.
- Evidence and alternatives: Ireland has run assemblies of this kind. Existing select committees and public submissions offer less resource-intensive ways to hear from people.
- What could change our minds: If the selection cannot be fair and inclusive, or if decision-makers repeatedly ignore the results without serious reasons, we would change the design.
How it could work
- Choose one clear question. Parliament could commission a forum on a major long-term policy or a proposal stuck in deadlock. The question and scope would be public before recruitment begins.
- Select 100 people by civic lottery. Random invitations would reach a large pool of adults. An independent selection process would form a group broadly reflecting New Zealand across region, age, gender, ethnicity, and circumstances. The method, eligibility rules, and replacement process would be published. Māori participation and the forum's relationship with existing Treaty obligations should be designed with Māori, not decided on their behalf.
- Make taking part possible. Members would be paid for their time and offered travel, accommodation, childcare, disability access, translation, and digital support where needed. Otherwise, participation would favour people who can afford to be away from work and family.
- Hear competing evidence. An independent secretariat would organise balanced briefings, public submissions, expert testimony, and questions chosen by members. Speakers would disclose relevant funding and interests. Members' contact details would be protected against private pressure.
- Discuss, then vote. Trained facilitators would help members test options and trade-offs over several meetings. The forum would vote on each recommendation and publish the vote tally, reasons, and substantial minority views. A vote would show what this group concluded after deliberation; it would not claim to be a national referendum.
- Require a public response. The government and a select committee would respond to each recommendation within a set period, explaining what they accept, reject, or want to investigate, and why. Progress would then appear in the annual accountability report.
The forum would advise elected decision-makers, not pass laws itself. It should complement public submissions, Parliament's select committees, and any referendum required by law. Under our draft deadlock model, a qualifying major bill could be referred to a forum once after two failed votes. Its findings could help MPs improve the bill, but would not override the parliamentary threshold.
What still needs deciding
The design would need public debate on who can commission a forum, how its agenda is protected from party control, whether membership is based on adult residents or voters, and how to ensure its 100 members reflect the country well enough. Forums cost money and time; they should be used for questions where informed public deliberation can genuinely help. We would publish the cost and an independent evaluation after each one.
Ireland's 100-person assembly terms of reference · How Ireland selects members · OECD guidance on fair deliberation