Kevin Rudd is threatening the states with a constitutional referendum on health. Anyone with the patience to wade through this impenetrable sludge (my 20 year old honours thesis) will know the following:
A constitutional referendum needs bipartisan support to have a chance of success.
If it doesn’t receive federal opposition support, and it is held mid-term (ie not concurrent with an election) it will be walloped.
If it doesn’t get bipartisan support and is held with an election, it will still fail - but respectably.
One corollary is that the actual content of questions is secondary. Referendums held together on wildly different topics usually get similar levels of support, for example.
There have been 44 referendums overall, 8 of which succeeded. Below are all the ones opposed by federal oppositions, ranked by descending national ‘yes’ vote. None was successful, although three received majority support but not a majority of states.
Constitutional referendums opposed by federal opposition, in decreasing order of national vote
| Yes vote% | year | Question | Govt | With election? |
| 50.6 | 1984 | Terms of Senators | Labor | Yes |
| 50.6 | 1946 | Organised Marketing of Primary Products | Labor | Yes |
| 50.3 | 1946 | Industrial Employment | Labor | Yes |
| 49.8 | 1913 | Trusts | Labor | Yes |
| 49.4 | 1951 | Powers To Deal With Communists&Communism | Liberal/CP | No |
| 49.4 | 1913 | Trade & Commerce | Labor | Yes |
| 49.3 | 1913 | Corporations | Labor | Yes |
| 49.3 | 1913 | Industrial Matters | Labor | Yes |
| 49.3 | 1913 | Nationalisation of Monopolies | Labor | Yes |
| 49.1 | 1913 | Railway Disputes | Labor | Yes |
| 49.0 | 1910 | Finance | Fusion | Yes |
| 48.3 | 1974 | Simultaneous Elections | Labor | Yes |
| 48.0 | 1974 | Mode of Altering The Constitution | Labor | Yes |
| 47.2 | 1974 | Democratic Elections | Labor | Yes |
| 47.1 | 1984 | Interchange of Powers | Labor | Yes |
| 46.9 | 1974 | Local Government Elections | Labor | Yes |
| 46.0 | 1944 | Post-war Reconstruction & Dem Rights | Labor | No |
| 43.8 | 1973 | Prices | Labor | No |
| 42.8 | 1926 | Essential Services | Nat/CP | No |
| 40.7 | 1948 | Rents & Prices | Labor | No |
| 39.9 | 1911 | Monopolies | Labor | No |
| 39.4 | 1911 | Legislative Services | Labor | No |
| 37.4 | 1988 | Fair Elections | Labor | No |
| 34.4 | 1973 | Incomes | Labor | No |
| 33.5 | 1988 | Local Government | Labor | No |
| 32.8 | 1988 | Parliamentary Terms | Labor | No |
| 30.6 | 1988 | Rights & Freedsoms | Labor | No |
There are patterns. Labor is nearly always in government. (A list of the eight successful referendums, by contrast, contains just one Labor entry.) As mentioned, referendums held together stick together in the list.
But the starkest pattern is that referendums concurrent with elections are at top, mid-term ones at bottom.
You could say that a referendum not supported by the opposition has a better chance of success if held with an election. Support tends to split along party lines, and if the government does very well it might drag the referendum with it as well.
But there is something else. It may be that these referendums also suppress government votes.
The last ones with elections were in 1984, 1974 and 1946. The 1984 one saw a closer election result than most expected. Perhaps the same with 1974.
It’s not something you could “prove”. But it’s possible that if Thing A lifts up Thing B, Thing B also drags down Thing A.
Perhaps, you think, health is so important that it will transcend all this? Don’t bet on it. Even if Tony Abbott wasn’t dedicated to opposing everything, the Coalition would oppose this. They always* do.
Then the logic of referendums will predominate.
Be careful with that referendum, Mr Rudd.
*The one Labor-initiated referendum that received bipartisan support, in 1946, was successfull.
Dammit, it’s referenda, not referendums!
Note http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/village-people-230110-1876396.html
“Referendums“, says I.
Comprehensive and compelling. The pity is that it needs to be spelt out like this – it’s something every political journalist should know before they start.
If you actually read those old referendum questions some of them get pretty scary… especially the Whitlam ones about government powers etc.
On referendums/referenda, note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ZUR9ialFc#t=3m37s
Gerald, the ones on wages and prices I suppose were an effort to combat inflation. Simultaneous elections seemed pretty benign and the one about territory voting likewise.
The one on democratic elections is interesting, not sure what they were trying to achieve with that small change. I am not sure of the effect of the local government one.
Democratic elections was mainly aimed at Queensland’s “Bjelke-mander”. It got the most support in that state too.
It was in the second decade of last century that the most ambitious referendums were put – and lots of them. Billy Hughes was either attorney general or prime minister (both parties) for most of them.
Peter, you Old Master. Until recently there was no way of accessing even the old referendum bills. Last year the APH website made them available. You might publish some of your data there?
My guess is Rudd will plough on simply to call Abbott’s bluff: Abbott is a wee-bit wedged having long and loudly demanded national power over hospitals, if not all health. Abbott has been conspicuous so far in not opposing the health proposals in substance, just attacking it politically.
Curiously (or not) referendums/a at State level are much more likely to carry. We’re not that conservative a bunch. Did you happen to look at whether opposition opposition worked so well at State level, Peter?
@Gerald. ‘Scary’? Labor had long sought national power over industrial relations. Whitlam pared that to ‘incomes’ but twinned it with ‘prices’. All defeated, in numerous referend/ums/a. Then in 2006 the most conservative High Court in several generations said to Mr Howard: here’s the power over corporations, you can regulate prices and incomes and working conditions and [fill in blank].
Graeme, at the time I looked at it (~1990) I don’t know that there were any/many constitutional referendums at state level?
Before seeing these figures I thought it could have the opposite effect.
Might it not work like the ‘by election’ effect – you get to slap the government, but not worry that the other mob actually get to run the place.
Thus the health referendum gets soundly defeated, we all make Kevin eat some humble pie, but his government has been basically OK so he gets another term.
I reckon there’s some truth to that. (Again, not worth trying to “show”.) The 1988 referendums went down by record amounts; Howard lost the leadership the next year and Labor won two more elections. In general, governments getting rebuffed at mid-term referendums have won the next election (which may or may not mean much).
But with the referendum concurrent with election that makes separating them trickier.