• Norman Abjorensen

09 March 2010Referendums promised by Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are fraught with political risk, writes Norman Abjorensen in Inside Story

KITES ARE not uncommon objects in the political sky in an election year, but already we are seeing a less common variety being put to the winds – referendums. Indeed, both prime minister Kevin Rudd and opposition leader Tony Abbott have flagged proposals for constitutional change, the former on his proposed health takeover if the states do not agree, and the latter in relation to water resources.

While these plans might suggest a degree of high seriousness about initiating change, they can’t be undertaken with any real confidence of success. To achieve a precarious balance between the pre-federation colonies’ interests, and thus to bring about federation, the authors of the Australian constitution produced a document – essentially a series of compromises – that is very difficult to change. It’s not so much that it is rigid, but rather that it is exceedingly democratic: under Section 128 not only a majority of voters but also a majority of voters in each of a majority of states must vote for a proposed amendment to succeed. This was designed to protect the smaller states from domination by New South Wales and Victoria, but also protects these two from concerted action by the others. Hence, gridlock...

Read the full article

Photo: Andrew Jeffrey