I have broken the referendums down into the categories of centralisation, democracy, illiberalism and other in order to determine what the voters have been rejecting over the last century. It turns out that voters have been rejecting centralisation, overwhelmingly, with only three referendum being passed in the category, and twenty-four failing.

The referendum's have been categorised as centralisation, democracy, illiberalism and other. The centralisation category is where the federal government has sought to increase its responsibilities via referendum. This isn't to say they are all bad, for instance the referendum on civil aviation makes federalist sense, however many of the referendum for further centralisation did not.

The democracy category is taken as referendums that seeks to increase democratic franchise, democratic practices and ensure individual rights. For instance the referendums asking whether the territories should be counted toward the national majority in a referendum.

The illiberalism category is instances that remove rights or liberty under the liberal democratic system. An immediate candidate for that is the referendum to ban the communist party. The other category is anything that doesn't fit into the others.

  • 1906 Senate Elections; Democracy - Passed
  • 1910 State Debts; Centralisation - Passed
  • 1910 Surplus Revenue; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1911 Trade and Commerce; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1911 Monopolies; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1913 Trade and Commerce; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1913 Corporations; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1913 Industrial Matters; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1913 Trusts; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1913 Monopolies; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1913 Railway Disputes; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1919 Legislative Powers; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1919 Monopolies; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1926 Industry and Commerce; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1926 Essential Services; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1928 State Debts; Centralisation - Passed
  • 1937 Aviation; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1937 Marketing; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1944 Emergency Powers for Reconstruction; Centralisation - Failed (included rights, but was a cynical attempt to bundle many prior failed referendums with freedom of speech and religion - hence centralisation)
  • 1946 Social Services; Centralisation - Passed
  • 1946 Marketing; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1946 Industrial Employment; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1948 Rents and Prices; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1951 Communism; Illiberalism - Failed
  • 1967 Parliament; Democracy - Failed
  • 1967 Aboriginals; Democracy - Passed
  • 1973 Prices; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1973 Incomes; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1974 Simultaneous Elections; Democracy - Failed
  • 1974 Mode of Altering the Constitution; Democracy - Failed
  • 1974 Democratic Elections; Democracy - Failed
  • 1974 Local Government Bodies; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1977 Simultaneous Elections; Democracy - Failed
  • 1977 Senate Casual Vacancies; Democracy - Passed
  • 1977 Referendums; Democracy - Passed
  • 1977 Retirement of Judges; Democracy - Passed
  • 1984 Terms of Senators; Democracy - Failed
  • 1984 Interchange of Powers; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1988 Parliamentary Terms; Democracy - Failed
  • 1988 Fair Elections; Democracy - Failed
  • 1988 Local Government; Centralisation - Failed
  • 1988 Rights and Freedoms; Democracy - Failed
  • 1999 Republic; Other - Failed
  • 1999 Preamble; Other - Failed

I have put the Republic/Preamble in the other category as they didn't actually attempt to change any democratic practices. They were largely aesthetic change to the constitution. Several of the ones I have placed in the democracy category could just have easily gone into the centralisation one.

The results are;

  • Centralisation; 3 for and 24 against.
  • Democracy; 5 for and 10 against.
  • Illiberalism; 1 against.
  • Other; 2 against.

Or expressed graphically;

The most obvious conclusion that can be drawn is that Australia has rejected centralisation through referendums; yet somehow we have had ongoing centralisation in the Commonwealth government. That suggests Canberra found ways other than referendums to centralise power in the federal government.

The Democratic referendums have had higher success rates, which suggests that issues which do involve democratic issues are taken seriously and judged rationally by voters.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Two more things to note: The centralisation referenda were mostly in the first fifty years of the Commonwealth, and have fallen off since then. This happens to correspond roughly with the Commonwealth government securing for itself the right to tax income, and the State governments being put on a lead ...

    Also, percentages are probably useful for comparison, so using your categories:

    • Centralisation: 11% passed,
    • Democracy: 33% passed.
    • Illiberalism: 0 passed
    • Other: 0 passed.

    That\'s still not a huge difference between centralisation and democracy, but it does suggest that the unwanted centralisation referenda is still largely responsible for the impression that it\'s hard to get our constitution changed.
  • cam . # .
    The centralisation referendums: do seem to skew the impression that it is difficult to change the constitution, when it is better explained that the people were wisely rejecting the expansion in scope of the federal government.

    It also appears that due to the inability of the federal government to expand via referendum, they found other means to increase centralisation. As you mentioned centralising tax was one method, the other is the High Court adopting a centralist doctrine (most high court appointees are political not specialist) and aiding the expansion of the federal government at every step. The meaning of excise being a good example and the corporations power another.

    It is interesting to note that even sixty years ago Workchoices probably would have required a referendum to go ahead. In the current environment with the House, Senate and High Court predisposed to federal power, there was no thought for the need. IIRC the Senate judged it constitutional though NSW, WA and Tasmania are challenging it in the courts.

    cam
  • Workchoices: I thought the states had referred IR power to the Commonwealth, and so it was constitutional? Have I missed something?
  • cam . # .
    I think only Victoria has: The Senate determined there were a couple of sections in the constitution which made it possible. Corporations power being one of them. IIRC it was in an APH research note that I read it.

    I guess one of the committee hansards will have the information. I will go digging.

    cam
  • Ah: Being Victorian, I may have conflated our own situation with that of the nation\'s, although I\'m almost certain what I read said something like \"the states (pl.) have agreed to refer IR to the Commonwealth, but are threatening to revoke it\" or some such. Still, I haven\'t read widely on the topic, so you\'re probably right.