Two Referendum Majorities
A referendum is proposed to insert a new section into the Constitution recognising a right to a healthy environment. At the last census, six states and two territories are counted. National polling suggests 54% support. State-level polling is: State 1: 61% yes; State 2: 58% yes; State 3: 52% yes; State 4: 49% no; State 5: 47% no; State 6: 45% no. Territory polling is 63% yes in each territory. The 'yes' campaign has concentrated spending in the three largest states, which are also the three 'yes' states. The 'no' campaign argues the wording would transfer power to the High Court.
1. Determine whether the referendum would pass under section 128 and show the arithmetic.
Read the worked answer
Section 128 requires a double majority: a majority of all voters nationally, and a majority of voters in a majority of the states. Territories count in the national total but not in the state count.
National: 54% yes, so the first limb is satisfied on these numbers.
States: three yes (States 1, 2, 3) and three no (States 4, 5, 6). A majority of six states is four. Three is not a majority, so the second limb fails.
Territories: 63% yes in each, but territory votes do not count toward the state majority. They can only help the national total.
Conclusion: the referendum fails despite winning the national popular vote. This is the classic double-majority trap, and the exam rewards the explicit statement that three of six is not a majority and that territories are excluded from the state count. A strong answer also notes that the requirement protects smaller states, which is why the three largest states being 'yes' is irrelevant to the state limb.
2. The 'yes' campaign proposes to redirect spending to States 4 and 5. Assess whether this is a sound strategy given the numbers.
Read the worked answer
The campaign needs one more state to reach four. States 4 and 5 are at 49% and 47% - both within plausible reach, with State 4 closer. State 6 at 45% is a longer shot.
But the arithmetic is constrained: the campaign must also hold the national majority. Redirecting spending from the three largest 'yes' states risks eroding the 54% national lead, and the national vote is the easier limb to lose if the three biggest states soften. A better strategy may be defensive in the big states and targeted in State 4 only, since winning one state is sufficient.
The judgement is that double-majority campaigns face a two-front problem: they must win a state majority without losing the national majority. Students should quantify: shifting 3 points in State 4 (49 to 52) would produce four states, but if that spending comes from the largest state and costs 2 points nationally, the 54% lead falls to 52% - still passing, so the trade is viable. The answer should test the trade rather than assert it.
3. The 'no' campaign's argument about High Court power is made. Explain how such arguments interact with the formal amendment process.
Read the worked answer
The formal process is set out in section 128: a bill must pass both houses (or one house twice under the deadlock procedure), be put to voters between two and six months later, and achieve the double majority. The argument about judicial power is not part of that formal process - it is a claim about consequences, directed at voters.
That matters because the High Court interprets the Constitution, so any new head of power or right will be construed by it. Whether the claim is accurate depends on the wording: a right expressed as a limit on legislative power invites judicial review, whereas a power expressed as a concurrent legislative head may not. The 'no' campaign is therefore making a substantive interpretive argument in the language of fear.
The exam-relevant point is that formal requirements and political argument operate at different levels: the process determines whether the change is valid, while the campaign determines whether it is wanted. Students should not confuse a contested interpretation with a procedural defect.