The Referendum That Needed More Than a Majority
A fictional advocacy group is campaigning on a proposed change to the Constitution. It has won over voters in the two most populous states and in the two territories, and it has a clear majority of the national popular vote - roughly 58 per cent. Its campaign director tells supporters that the change is "effectively done" because the people have spoken. A volunteer asks whether the territories count toward the state majority requirement, and whether the Governor-General could simply decline to put the proposal to a vote. A second volunteer asks what would happen if the proposal passed but a later government wanted to undo it by ordinary legislation. The group meets to plan its final fortnight.
1. The campaign has a national majority and wins two large states. Is the change "effectively done"? Explain what else is required.
Read the worked answer
No. A constitutional alteration requires a double majority at a referendum: a majority of voters nationally, and a majority of voters in a majority of the states - that is, at least four of the six states. Winning the two most populous states, even by large margins, delivers only two of the four needed.
So the campaign's arithmetic is incomplete. It must win at least two more states. Because the state test is counted per state (each state's own majority), a large national margin does not compensate for losing four states. The director's "the people have spoken" framing confuses a national plebiscite with the constitutional requirement. The final fortnight should target the remaining states, not rest on the popular-vote lead.
2. Do the territories count toward the majority-of-states requirement, and could the Governor-General refuse to put the proposal to a vote?
Read the worked answer
Territories do not count toward the majority-of-states requirement. The requirement is expressed in terms of the states, and territory votes count in the national total but not in the state count. So the group's support in the two territories is worth having for the national majority but does nothing for the four-state threshold.
On the Governor-General: the proposal is put to the people after it has passed both Houses of Parliament, and the Governor-General's role in that process is formal - acting on ministerial advice. A refusal to put a lawfully passed proposal to a referendum would be a departure from constitutional convention and would create a serious crisis. The realistic constraint is parliamentary passage, not vice-regal veto. The volunteer's question is really about whether the head of state has personal discretion here; the answer is that the system runs on convention, and the Governor-General acts on advice.
3. If the referendum succeeded, could a later government repeal the change by ordinary legislation?
Read the worked answer
No. A successful referendum changes the Constitution itself, and the Constitution sits above ordinary legislation. An ordinary Act of Parliament cannot override or repeal a constitutional provision; the High Court can strike down legislation inconsistent with the Constitution.
To undo the change, the country would need another referendum, run through the same double-majority process. This is the point of entrenchment: it makes change hard, which protects the framework from shifting with each parliamentary term. The volunteer's question is a good test of understanding the hierarchy - Parliament is sovereign within the Constitution, not above it. The campaign should explain this, because it reassures voters that a yes vote is not easily reversed, and it warns them that a no vote is equally sticky.