You're the Voice

No, not just a John Farnham song: Australians are voting again — a Constitutional Referendum this time

Australians vote a lot.

The country’s Federal Parliament has (short) three-year terms, coupled with the Westminster convention that allows a Prime Minister to “call” an early election at a time he or she considers advantageous. Then there’s all the state and territory parliaments—their elections also take place regularly, every three or four years, depending on the state.

In all these elections, voting is compulsory.

In some parts of Australia, even local council elections are compulsory—and if not, are conveniently held on the same day as a state or federal election, which amounts to the same thing.

I’ve walked into a polling booth with a dozen official pieces of paper in my hand, and that’s before you count the how-to-vote cards handed out by pollworkers outside the polling station itself.

No, this doesn’t lead to a huge “spoiled ballot” or “informal” vote, despite the complexity of Australia’s electoral system. No, it doesn’t lead to bad government. Australian governance knocks the rest of the Anglosphere and most of the rest of the developed world into a cocked hat. Only a few similarly wealthy European nations (think Norway or Switzerland) are on par.

Referendums to change the Constitution

Like the US, Australia has a written constitution and, historically, had a group of distinguished “framers” (the country’s equivalent of the US’s “founders”). However, the mechanism the framers developed to amend the constitution is different from that used in the US.

Section 128 provides that the only way in which the Constitution can be amended is by means of a Referendum. Any proposed amendment must be put to the Australian electorate. Section 128 requires a “double majority” Yes vote:

1. A majority of voters in a majority of states (a majority Yes vote in at least four of the six states); and

2. A national majority of all voters (an overall Yes vote of more than 50% of all voters in favour of the proposed change, taking in voters in both the states and the territories).

3. Note: the territories only contribute to the overall majority sum—not the majority of voters in a majority of states sum—precisely because they are territories.

If there’s a double majority, the Constitution is changed.

Voting in Referendums is also compulsory.

Since Federation in 1901, there have been 44 proposed changes to the Constitution. Only eight of those were passed by the Australian people at a referendum.

As should be fairly obvious, this system was modelled on Switzerland’s cantonal-based direct democracy. Australia’s late c19th Framers were complete bowerbirds, nicking good governance mechanisms from all over the world.

You’re the Voice

No, not just a John Farnham song (although I’m sure the people who came up the proposal had his 80s mega-hit in mind when choosing the name).

On October 14th this year, the Australian people will vote on whether or not “to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.”

This is meant to be more than symbolic recognition: it effectively establishes a third chamber.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution would add—if passed—the following Chapter and section:

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

(1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

(2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

(3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

The best explainer I’ve seen of the history behind this proposal and the rationale for it is by Melbourne University Professor of Law

Katy Barnett

. It’s available here. Note: in the UK and Commonwealth, “professor” is a distinguished title—not just accorded to any academic no matter how junior. Even better, it’s impossible to tell which way Barnett’s going to vote—YES or NO.

Although I write primarily for UK and US audiences these days, I have Australian background and legal experience (including in the country’s federal parliament). This means I’m being called on to comment about the Voice for audiences both far and near.

Tomorrow, I’m talking to Will Kingston of The Spectator on the magazine’s “Australiana” podcast. The podcast will air in the first half of September.

I’ve also got various other podcasting and writing commitments lined up in advance of the vote, and I’ll always share the details here.

That does mean, however, you’ll have to listen to my interview with Will at the Speccie to find out how I’m going to vote (which means a visit to Australia House, aka Gringotts), and why.

Australia House on the Strand, used as the set for Gringotts Wizarding Bank in the Harry Potter films.