Factors Affecting Referendum Success (VCE SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes
Factors Affecting Referendum Success
Introduction
Achieving a successful referendum in Australia is notoriously difficult. Historical evidence shows that Australian voters are generally reluctant to agree to changes in the Constitution's wording. Understanding the factors that influence referendum success is crucial for analysing constitutional reform processes.
Since Federation, only 8 of 44 referendum proposals have succeeded, demonstrating the extraordinary difficulty of achieving constitutional change in Australia.
Experience demonstrates that referendums face significant hurdles due to the double majority requirement and the cautious nature of Australian voters. When faced with uncertainty about proposed changes, voters tend to maintain the status quo rather than risk unknown consequences.
Key factors affecting referendum success
Four main factors influence whether a referendum will succeed or fail:
- Whether there is bipartisan support for the proposal
- Whether the voters themselves are seeking change
- The nature of the proposal (simple versus complex)
- Education about the proposal
These four factors are interconnected and often work together to determine referendum outcomes. Weakness in one area can undermine strengths in others.
Bipartisan support
What is bipartisan support?
Bipartisan support means approval by two or more political parties. In the Australian context, this typically refers to support from the two major parties: the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal Party. This political backing is often the most critical factor determining referendum success.
Why bipartisan support matters
History demonstrates that referendum success depends heavily on whether major political parties at both Commonwealth and state levels support the proposed change. When the opposition disagrees with a proposal, they launch a 'no' campaign, resulting in voters being confronted with two strongly argued, opposing positions. This creates confusion and division among the electorate.
Many Australian voters do not fully understand the Constitution or the technical nature of proposed changes. Consequently, they often look to their preferred political party for guidance on how to vote. If their party supports the change, voters are more inclined to vote 'yes'. This loyalty-based voting can be decisive in referendum outcomes.
Historical examples
Worked Example: The 1951 Communist Party Referendum
The 1951 referendum regarding the Communist Party illustrates the importance of bipartisan support clearly:
- The ALP, then in opposition, campaigned vigorously against the change
- Without bipartisan support, the referendum failed despite the government's advocacy
- This demonstrates how opposition campaigns can successfully defeat government proposals
Worked Example: The 1967 Aboriginal Rights Referendum
In contrast, the 1967 referendum enjoyed bipartisan support from all major parties:
- With no formal 'no' case presented to voters, the Australian people were not subjected to divisive arguments or political disunity
- This absence of opposition contributed significantly to the referendum's overwhelming success
- The referendum achieved over 90% support nationally
The role of state premiers
Referendum outcomes can also be affected by state premiers' positions. Because the double majority requirement demands majority support in at least four states, premiers can be highly influential. They may encourage a 'no' vote if they believe the proposal does not benefit their state or if it increases Commonwealth power at the expense of state interests.
Political parties at the state level may oppose proposals that focus on national interests over state concerns, particularly when state residents receive no direct benefits from the proposed change. This state-versus-federal tension adds another layer of complexity to referendum campaigns.
Whether voters are seeking change
People's ownership versus government-driven reform
The success of a referendum depends significantly on whether the people themselves support and actively promote the change (known as people's ownership), or whether the government drives and controls the reform agenda. When voters feel genuine ownership of a proposed change, they demonstrate greater willingness to vote 'yes'.
The 1967 referendum as a people's movement
Worked Example: The 1967 Referendum as a Grassroots Movement
The 1967 referendum serves as a prime example of a successful people's movement:
- This referendum was driven by the people themselves after decades of First Nations peoples agitating against discrimination and unfair treatment
- Non-Indigenous advocates also joined this movement, creating broad-based community support
- Because the change emerged from grassroots activism rather than political manoeuvring, voters felt connected to the cause and voted overwhelmingly in favour
Government-driven changes and voter caution
When the government drives constitutional change, Australian voters often respond with greater caution. This stems from a general distrust of politicians and concerns that reforms may benefit those in power rather than serving the greater good. Voters may suspect that politicians seek to enhance their own authority or advance partisan interests rather than improve governance for all citizens.
Common Voter Concerns with Government-Driven Reform:
When politicians lead constitutional change, voters often worry:
- The reform may benefit those in power rather than serving the greater good
- Politicians may be seeking to enhance their own authority
- The change may advance partisan interests rather than improve governance for all citizens
The 1999 referendum example
The 1999 referendum on the republic demonstrates how initial public support can erode as the referendum approaches. Commentators noted that support for a republic was initially high in the lead-up to the vote. However, the referendum ultimately failed decisively. Other factors contributed to this decline, including lack of bipartisan support (Prime Minister John Howard urged a 'no' vote) and confusion about the information provided. Many found the proposed model too complex and lacking in clarity.
Additionally, many voters who supported the concept of a republic voted 'no' because they preferred a directly elected president rather than one appointed by parliament. This demonstrates how government-driven reforms may fail when voters feel their preferred options are not offered.
The nature of the proposal
Simple versus complex proposals
The complexity or simplicity of a proposed change significantly affects referendum success. Straightforward, accessible proposals are more likely to gain voter support than complex, difficult-to-understand changes. When voters cannot clearly understand what they are being asked to approve, they typically vote 'no', especially when there is little public enthusiasm for the change.
When proposals are clear, sensible, and straightforward, the Australian public shows greater willingness to vote 'yes'. The clarity of the question and the proposed constitutional alterations directly impact voter confidence and decision-making.
The 1988 referendum failures
Worked Example: The 1988 Referendum's Multiple Failures
The 1988 referendum provides a clear example of how complexity can doom proposals. This referendum contained four separate questions, none of which passed:
1. Right to vote guarantee: Sought to guarantee a right to vote in the Constitution and ensure fair elections. Despite seeming straightforward, this proposal was rejected nationally, gaining only 38% support.
2. Four-year terms: Proposed that both the House of Representatives and the Senate be elected for four-year terms. This was widely rejected, drawing support from only 33% of voters nationally.
The remaining two proposals were also rejected.
Why did these proposals fail?
Several reasons explain the 1988 failures:
First, the proposals focused on the technical mechanics of voting and elections in Australia, raising complex constitutional issues that many voters struggled to understand.
Second, there is generally very little public knowledge of the Australian Constitution and the election mechanisms it contains. Voters lacking understanding and interest in the proposed changes defaulted to voting 'no'.
Third, having four questions may have been confusing or overwhelming for voters. Multiple complex proposals presented simultaneously can lead to voter fatigue and rejection of all changes as a precautionary measure.
Education about the proposal
The knowledge gap
The Australian Constitution rarely receives mainstream media analysis, and the general public possesses very limited knowledge of constitutional structures, government organisation, and parliamentary procedures. This knowledge gap creates significant challenges when voters must consider changing something they know little about.
The importance of education campaigns
One critical success factor is the extent and quality of information and education campaigns conducted before a referendum. Strong, simple messaging that clearly describes the proposed change is essential. The official booklet sent to all voters must include:
- A straightforward explanation of current government and law-making structures
- Clear details about what would change under the proposal
- A balanced presentation of the 'yes' and 'no' cases
- Simple language accessible to voters with limited constitutional knowledge
The Risk of Misinformation
Effective education campaigns become increasingly necessary given the rise of social media and the potential spread of misinformation. Clear, authoritative information helps voters distinguish between factual analysis and misleading claims.
Historical examples of education impact
Some commentators argue that past referendums have failed not because Australians resist change, but because they did not receive sufficient information to understand proposals fully. The 1999 referendum information booklet was criticised by some as raising more questions than it answered. The material was seen as confusing and adversarial, and the referendum question itself was complex.
Furthermore, the 1999 referendum offered only one model for a republic. Voters could only say 'yes' or 'no' to a president appointed by a two-thirds parliamentary majority. There was no opportunity to say 'yes' to a republic while choosing between different models (such as a directly elected president, an indirectly elected one chosen by parliament, or a government-appointed one). For those wanting a directly elected president, the only option was to vote 'no'.
The danger of irrelevant issues
Public debate can sometimes be sidetracked by irrelevant issues that confuse voters rather than inform them. During the 1999 campaign, some people urging a 'no' vote claimed that if the referendum succeeded, Australia's flag would change and the public holiday for the monarch's birthday would be lost. These claims, while unrelated to the actual proposal, may have influenced some voters' decisions.
Successful education: The 1967 example
Worked Example: Clear Messaging in the 1967 Referendum
The 1967 referendum, concerning First Nations peoples' rights, contained a simple, clear message about why change was required:
- Even voters unfamiliar with the Constitution found the proposal immediately appealing and accessible
- This clarity contributed significantly to the referendum's success
- The straightforward nature of the proposal allowed voters to understand exactly what they were voting for
Case study: The 1999 referendum
Background
In the early 1990s, Prime Minister Paul Keating (ALP) expressed his desire for Australia to become a republic by the Centenary of Federation (1 January 2001). After the Liberal-National Coalition won the 1996 election, Prime Minister John Howard established a Constitutional Convention to debate removing the monarch as Australia's head of state.
What is a Coalition?
A coalition is an alliance or joining together of two or more political parties, usually to form government. In this case, the Liberal Party and National Party formed the Coalition government.
A majority of Constitutional Convention attendees agreed on a proposal, which was then put to the Australian people on 6 November 1999.
The proposals
Two bills passed through both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament:
First proposal - Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 (Cth)
This aimed to make Australia a republic rather than part of the English monarchy. Key proposed changes included:
- Having a president as head of state instead of the Queen's representative
- Setting out mechanisms for selecting a president, including a committee to receive and consider nominations
- Establishing the president's powers
- Establishing the president's term of office and removal powers
- Removing monarchical references from the Constitution
Second proposal - Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 (Cth)
This aimed to insert a new preamble into the Australian Constitution. The preamble forms part of the Constitution and can only be changed by referendum. The proposed preamble emphasised Australia's democratic values, acknowledged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, recognised immigrants' contributions, and affirmed commitment to environmental protection and equality.
The referendum question
The question asked whether voters approved of "the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."
No alternative models were offered for consideration.
Results
Both proposals failed decisively:
First question (republic establishment):
- Rejected by 54.87% of voters nationally
- Supported by only 45.13%
- Failed to receive majority support in any state
- Victoria showed the strongest support at 49.84%, but this was still a minority
Second question (preamble insertion):
- Supported by only 39.34% of voters nationally
- Rejected by 60.66%
- Also failed to gain majority support in any state
State-by-State Results:
- Queensland: 62.56% voted against
- Tasmania: 59.63% voted against
- Western Australia: 58.52% voted against
- South Australia: 56.43% voted against
- NSW: 53.57% voted against
- Victoria: 50.16% voted against
These results surprised many observers, as polling suggested general support for a republic in the lead-up to the referendum.
Reasons for failure
Several interconnected factors contributed to the 1999 referendum's failure:
1. Australian caution about constitutional change
Australians are traditionally cautious about constitutional reform. The proposal to have a president elected by parliament was unfamiliar and caused concern. A constitutional monarchy (a system where a monarch is head of state and a constitution sets out parliament's powers) was seen by many as providing stable government.
2. Divided republican opinion
Public opinion on introducing a president varied widely. Traditional monarchists argued that constitutional monarchy provided stability and encouraged undecided voters to maintain the status quo. However, many people who generally supported a republic voted 'no' because they believed the president should be elected directly by the people rather than chosen by parliament. Some voters regarded the parliamentary appointment model as undemocratic and wanted choice in presidential selection.
3. Lack of bipartisan support
Prime Minister John Howard urged a 'no' vote on the grounds of maintaining ties to Britain. This argument swayed undecided voters, especially Liberal Party supporters who looked to their leader for guidance. Without genuine bipartisan support, voters were subjected to divisive political campaigning rather than unified advocacy for change.
4. Confusing and unclear information
The information booklet and other campaign materials were seen by many as confusing, adversarial, and unclear. The question itself was complex and technical. Rather than providing clear education about the proposal, the materials raised questions that were not adequately addressed.
5. Limited model options
The referendum offered only one model for a republic. Voters could not express support for a republic while choosing their preferred method of presidential selection. This meant that republicans who wanted a directly elected president had no option but to vote 'no', fragmenting the 'yes' vote.
6. Misinformation and irrelevant issues
Some 'no' campaigners made claims about consequent changes to Australia's flag and loss of the monarch's birthday public holiday. These claims, while unrelated to the actual proposal, may have confused and concerned some voters.
Summary of factors
Key Factors Affecting Referendum Success:
| Factor | Key points |
|---|---|
| Bipartisan support | - Refers to support from two or more political parties (usually ALP and Liberal Party) - Most likely to succeed when all major parties at Commonwealth and state levels support it - Opposition 'no' campaigns create voter uncertainty - Voters often follow their preferred party's position - State premiers can influence state-level voting - Example: 1967 had bipartisan support and succeeded; 1951 lacked it and failed |
| Whether voters are seeking change | - Success depends on whether people or government 'own' the change - People's movements (grassroots-driven) more likely to succeed - Government-driven changes may face voter distrust - Voters may suspect politicians seek to enhance their own power - When in doubt, voters maintain status quo - Example: 1967 was a people's movement and succeeded; 1999 was government-driven and failed |
| The nature of the proposal | - Simple, straightforward proposals more likely to succeed - Complex or confusing proposals typically fail - Double majority is difficult to achieve - Successful changes have been non-controversial and clear - Multiple referendum questions can confuse voters - Example: 1988 referendum had four complex questions and all failed |
| Education about the proposal | - Public has limited knowledge of the Constitution - Strong, clear education campaigns are essential - Official booklets must explain both current system and proposed changes - Simple messaging needed to avoid confusion - Social media increases risk of misinformation - Irrelevant issues can sidetrack public debate - Example: 1967 had clear messaging and succeeded; 1999 information was confusing and failed |
Exam technique
How to Analyse Referendum Success Factors:
When analysing factors affecting referendum success, you should:
- Break down each factor into its components (definition, importance, examples)
- Compare successful and unsuccessful referendums to illustrate each factor's impact
- Use specific examples with dates, statistics, and outcomes
- Consider interrelationships between factors (e.g., lack of bipartisan support affects education quality)
- Evaluate relative importance of different factors in specific contexts
- Support arguments with evidence from the 1967, 1988, 1999, and other referendums
For evaluation questions, consider:
- Which factors are most influential in determining success?
- Can any single factor guarantee success or failure?
- How do these factors interact with each other?
- Are some factors more important for certain types of proposals?
Remember!
Essential Points to Remember:
- Only 8 of 44 referendum proposals have succeeded since Federation, demonstrating the difficulty of achieving constitutional change in Australia
- Bipartisan support is crucial – when major parties disagree, voters face competing campaigns and often vote 'no'
- People's movements succeed more than government-driven reforms because voters trust grassroots campaigns more than political initiatives
- Simple, clear proposals work better – complexity and confusion lead to 'no' votes
- Education campaigns must be strong and clear – voters need to understand what they're voting for, especially given low constitutional literacy
- The 1967 referendum succeeded because it had bipartisan support, was a people's movement, was simple, and had clear messaging
- The 1999 referendum failed despite initial public support due to lack of bipartisan support, limited model options, confusing information, and voter distrust
- When in doubt, Australians vote 'no'– voters prefer to maintain the status quo rather than risk unknown consequences
Key terms: Bipartisan support, people's ownership, status quo, constitutional monarchy, coalition, double majority, Commonwealth