Three lessons from past referendums for the VoiceDr Benjamin Jones is a Senior Lecturer at QUT, and a historian with expertise in Australian political history, especially republicanism and national identity
This Explainer looks at the history of federal referendum in Australia, and provides three key lessons we can take from them to help understand the context of the Voice Referendum |
The Australian nation came into being following a series of referendums in the 1890s and they have been a regular feature of Australian democracy ever since. In every decade of the twentieth century there was at least one referendum, however, the 2023 referendum on the First Nations’ Voice to Parliament will be the first in nearly a quarter of a century.
The authors of the Australian constitution wanted it to be an enduring but not unchanging document. In Section 128 a mechanism for changing the constitution was included which has a role for the federal government, the states, and the constituents. Federal parliament must agree to put a change forward, it then must be approved by a majority of states as well as an overall majority if electors. According to Donald Lutz, the ‘double majority’ makes Australia’s constitution the fifth most difficult in the world to change.
In 1967 constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Sawer described Australia as a ‘frozen continent’ and despite the four changes since then, some might argue that it remains the case today. Only 8 referendum questions from 44 have achieved the double majority to pass meaning the constitution is still highly similar to the one produced in 1901. While changing the constitution is very difficult in Australia, there are lessons from the history of referendums that can guide supporters of the First Nations’ Voice to Parliament and other advocates of reform.
1) No more power for Canberra
The first lesson is that Australians are trenchantly opposed to any change that increases the power of the federal government. Between 1906 and 1999 there were 23 proposals that extended the power of the Commonwealth. Only 2 were successful (1946 and 1967) and both of those could be considered extraordinary circumstances dealing with postwar reconstruction and removing discriminatory references to First Nations. A fair conclusion to be drawn is that the electorate is broadly happy with the division of power between the states and the commonwealth.
The No campaign in 2023 is following the successful strategy from the past two referendums. In 1999 the No case criticised a ‘politicians republic’ and argued it would give more power to Canberra. Hawke’s 4 proposals in 1988 were also presented as a power-grab by the prime minster. Similarly, No lobby Fair Australia is calling the proposal ‘Albo’s Voice’ and describing it as a ploy for so-called elites. The Voice proposal does not grant any extra powers to the federal government and the body itself has no powers other than to exist and to offer advice. Regardless, the Yes campaign need to counter the narrative that the proposal concentrates power in Canberra.
2) There must be a clear reason
The 1977 referendum is the only time where multiple proposals were approved at once. The three successful proposals addressed clear problems. In the wake of the controversial Whitlam dismissal, there was a strong public mood to ensure that when a Senate vacancy occurs, the replacement is from the same party. Including votes from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in referendums was seen as an act of fairness and a retirement age of 70 for federal judges seemed like common sense. Contrast this with 1988 where one of Hawke’s unsuccessful proposals was to ensure religious freedom. It was not the case that electors disagreed but they did not see it as a problem. They felt that they already had religious freedom so why tamper with the constitution?
Again, this is an area that the Yes case must focus on. Frist Nations can be symbolically recognised in the constitution through the addition of a new preamble. This was proposed and rejected at the 1999 referendum. Peter Dutton has now suggested he will hold a second referendum if the Voice fails to recognise First Nations. A key challenge for supporters of the Voice is to convince electors that it is not merely symbolic recognition but a mechanism for practical outcomes. The Nationals, who officially opposed the Voice before the details were released, have argued that it will add a layer of bureaucracy. The Yes side must explain how it will lead to better outcomes.
3) Bipartisanship is crucial
Even though the Federal Coalition have taken a No stance, there are many prominent Liberals who advocate a Yes vote including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and former foreign minister Julie Bishop. Since Federation, no referendum has passed without bipartisan support so it is crucial that the Yes campaign actively counter the narrative that this is Labor’s Voice. The new Yes advertisement uses John Farnham’s classic hit You’re The Voice and, significantly, includes footage of Liberal party achievements such as gun reform and the marriage equality plebiscite.
Bipartisan support does not guarantee the success of a referendum. Fraser’s fourth proposal in 1977 for simultaneous elections for the House and Senate failed despite support from the Labor opposition. The iconic 1967 referendum was the most successful ever for the first question to remove discriminatory references to Frist Nations. The second question, to break the nexus between the number of Senators and MPs also had bipartisan support but was comfortably defeated. What seems clear, however, is that Voice must be seen as above politics in order to pass. Highlighting the conservative politicians, as well as community and religious leaders who support the Voice would give it a better chance of success.
For well over half a century, politicians from both major parties have agreed that the constitution needs to be updated and modernised. Constitutional commissions and legal experts have been used in an attempt to depoliticise the process, however, the constitution still remains largely frozen. The aggressive, hyper-partisan nature of Australian politics has meant that few oppositions can resist the instinct to sink a government proposal, even if they support the change in principle.
The Labor Party has traditionally been more enthusiastic about constitutional reform and, apart from Curtin who died in office, every Labor Prime Minister who oversaw a failed referendum had a second attempt. Hawke, Whitlam, Chifley, and Fisher all tried twice. If the Voice does go down, having already expended a great deal of political capital in constitutional change, Albanese may well follow this long tradition.
The authors of the Australian constitution wanted it to be an enduring but not unchanging document. In Section 128 a mechanism for changing the constitution was included which has a role for the federal government, the states, and the constituents. Federal parliament must agree to put a change forward, it then must be approved by a majority of states as well as an overall majority if electors. According to Donald Lutz, the ‘double majority’ makes Australia’s constitution the fifth most difficult in the world to change.
In 1967 constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Sawer described Australia as a ‘frozen continent’ and despite the four changes since then, some might argue that it remains the case today. Only 8 referendum questions from 44 have achieved the double majority to pass meaning the constitution is still highly similar to the one produced in 1901. While changing the constitution is very difficult in Australia, there are lessons from the history of referendums that can guide supporters of the First Nations’ Voice to Parliament and other advocates of reform.
1) No more power for Canberra
The first lesson is that Australians are trenchantly opposed to any change that increases the power of the federal government. Between 1906 and 1999 there were 23 proposals that extended the power of the Commonwealth. Only 2 were successful (1946 and 1967) and both of those could be considered extraordinary circumstances dealing with postwar reconstruction and removing discriminatory references to First Nations. A fair conclusion to be drawn is that the electorate is broadly happy with the division of power between the states and the commonwealth.
The No campaign in 2023 is following the successful strategy from the past two referendums. In 1999 the No case criticised a ‘politicians republic’ and argued it would give more power to Canberra. Hawke’s 4 proposals in 1988 were also presented as a power-grab by the prime minster. Similarly, No lobby Fair Australia is calling the proposal ‘Albo’s Voice’ and describing it as a ploy for so-called elites. The Voice proposal does not grant any extra powers to the federal government and the body itself has no powers other than to exist and to offer advice. Regardless, the Yes campaign need to counter the narrative that the proposal concentrates power in Canberra.
2) There must be a clear reason
The 1977 referendum is the only time where multiple proposals were approved at once. The three successful proposals addressed clear problems. In the wake of the controversial Whitlam dismissal, there was a strong public mood to ensure that when a Senate vacancy occurs, the replacement is from the same party. Including votes from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in referendums was seen as an act of fairness and a retirement age of 70 for federal judges seemed like common sense. Contrast this with 1988 where one of Hawke’s unsuccessful proposals was to ensure religious freedom. It was not the case that electors disagreed but they did not see it as a problem. They felt that they already had religious freedom so why tamper with the constitution?
Again, this is an area that the Yes case must focus on. Frist Nations can be symbolically recognised in the constitution through the addition of a new preamble. This was proposed and rejected at the 1999 referendum. Peter Dutton has now suggested he will hold a second referendum if the Voice fails to recognise First Nations. A key challenge for supporters of the Voice is to convince electors that it is not merely symbolic recognition but a mechanism for practical outcomes. The Nationals, who officially opposed the Voice before the details were released, have argued that it will add a layer of bureaucracy. The Yes side must explain how it will lead to better outcomes.
3) Bipartisanship is crucial
Even though the Federal Coalition have taken a No stance, there are many prominent Liberals who advocate a Yes vote including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and former foreign minister Julie Bishop. Since Federation, no referendum has passed without bipartisan support so it is crucial that the Yes campaign actively counter the narrative that this is Labor’s Voice. The new Yes advertisement uses John Farnham’s classic hit You’re The Voice and, significantly, includes footage of Liberal party achievements such as gun reform and the marriage equality plebiscite.
Bipartisan support does not guarantee the success of a referendum. Fraser’s fourth proposal in 1977 for simultaneous elections for the House and Senate failed despite support from the Labor opposition. The iconic 1967 referendum was the most successful ever for the first question to remove discriminatory references to Frist Nations. The second question, to break the nexus between the number of Senators and MPs also had bipartisan support but was comfortably defeated. What seems clear, however, is that Voice must be seen as above politics in order to pass. Highlighting the conservative politicians, as well as community and religious leaders who support the Voice would give it a better chance of success.
For well over half a century, politicians from both major parties have agreed that the constitution needs to be updated and modernised. Constitutional commissions and legal experts have been used in an attempt to depoliticise the process, however, the constitution still remains largely frozen. The aggressive, hyper-partisan nature of Australian politics has meant that few oppositions can resist the instinct to sink a government proposal, even if they support the change in principle.
The Labor Party has traditionally been more enthusiastic about constitutional reform and, apart from Curtin who died in office, every Labor Prime Minister who oversaw a failed referendum had a second attempt. Hawke, Whitlam, Chifley, and Fisher all tried twice. If the Voice does go down, having already expended a great deal of political capital in constitutional change, Albanese may well follow this long tradition.
Acknowledgement:
An earlier version of this was published here:
An earlier version of this was published here:
- Benjamin T. Jones, What history can tell us about the success (or failure) of referendums in Australia (2023) The Conversation, 20 September 2023,