Australians, rightly, don't trust politicians who want to fiddle with the constitution.

George Williams states in 'Frozen Continent' that "Since its single success in 1946, Labor has made 13 attempts at constitutional reform. .....".

I have to pick George up here with respect to the claimed single success at having a referendum question passed in 1946. Although authoritative references like the then Commonwealth Year Book, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Handbook, report this one question as having been approved by the electors, such claims are not correct. The Social Services referendum did not secure a majority in a majority of States when the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution are correctly applied. It secured majorities only in NSW, Victoria, and Western Australia.

The relevant words of Section 128 of the Constitution provide that: "And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

'All electors voting' includes those who may have voted in a manner that at the counting of votes may be determined as being informal.

When the actual voting figures shown on page 65 of the Commonwealth Year Book for 1946-47 are dealt with as required under the provisions of Section 128, it will be seen that the 'Yes' vote fell short of attaining a majority in Tasmania under the Constitutional formula by 4,978 votes.

George also claims "Spoiling campaigns have proved especially effective because most Australians know very little about their constitution and system of government." In the nigh on 62 years since those 1946 referenda, seemingly not an iota of recognition of the falsity of this claimed outcome on the part of any representative or political party! If George is correct about 'most Australians' knowing very little about their Constitution (which I doubt), it is interesting to see the extreme concentration of seeming ignorance amongst those who have had the most to say, and the most opportunity to say it over the years, about the need for alteration of it.

Reprehensible indeed!

Since it will require constitutional reform for us to become a republic, it would be sensible to piggyback referenda other changes -- including, ideally, a Bill of Rights -- on a republic referendum which, properly worded, is almost bound to pass.

Hi George,

Actually the ACT does have fixed 4 year terms http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/electtimetable.html they came in at the last election in 2004.

cheers

George

I think there are some issues that need further examination.

Why do so many referendums fail?

It may not only be the mechanisms for change (plus, as you point out, almost certain failure if there is not bi-partisan support.)

It could be that the Constitution is like early stage cancer - you feel OK and don't even know you're sick. Some may say in fact we are not sick precisely because the constitution is such an innocuous document that impacts on few in any meaningful way. As long as jobs are plentiful, wages OK, and there is time to spend with the kids, who gives a stuff about placitum 51 xi or whatever?

Second you seem to imply 4 year fixed terms are a good thing. I'm in favour of extending democracy both in terms of time and place. For that reason I'd support yearly elections.

Finally the comments about a republic remind me I voted against the Turnbull republic proposal. I support democratisation of our symbols including head of state. Turnbull's model was the rich man's republic and importantly retained the reserve powers, something I oppose.

I don't like the telling of half-truths, especially with respect to matters touching upon the Constitution.

I must confess to having come very close to telling one myself, in my first post in this thread, in claiming "In the nigh on 62 years since those 1946 referenda, seemingly not an iota of recognition of the falsity of this claimed outcome on the part of any representative or political party!".

Whilst not presumably being one or any number of elected representatives, or openly an instrumentality of any political party, the authority responsible for publication of the Parliamentary Handbook seemingly noticed the dodginess of the reporting of the outcome of the 1946 referenda. The footnote to the recorded outcome of the Social Services referendum on p.666 of the 1991 edition of the Parliamentary Handbook refers to the accounting for votes by members of the Forces at that referendum.

No similar notation was included with earlier publication of the results in the 1946-47 Year Book.

A cross check of the figures in each reference reveals that those votes by members of the Forces, although not SPECIALLY NOTED in the earlier publication, WERE INCLUDED in the respective State totals, and the overall total of votes, published in the 1946-47 Year Book referenda results. There is thus no basis for any inference that might otherwise be drawn, if reading only the Parliamentary Handbook, that State totals might require to be subject to some adjustment as a consequence of these Forces votes.

Now the thing is that the Handbook footnote seemingly seeks not to clarify the 1946 referendum outcome, but rather to obfuscate, offering in advance an excuse for continuing to ignore the original mis-statement of result in the event of its discovery. To make matters worse, the Australian Electoral Commission quotes the Parliamentary Handbook as authority for its website's historical records of referendum results!

So, George, I hope this insight into the very recording of attempted alteration of the Constitution explains the voter distrust behind the history standing against prospects for achieving successful ambitious constitutional change.

Caveat elector!