The State Franchise in
Victoria, 1842-2005
Barbara Kerr,
baker1@student.monash.edu
PSI3000
Academic supervisor: Dr Jennifer Curtin
This report is not an official report of the Victorian Electoral Commission.
Professional Intern Reports are prepared by Political and Social Inquiry
students as part of the requirements for the Professional Internship Program
PSI3000. The Program is coordinated by Monash University. The views
expressed in this report are those of the author.
Acknowledgements ........................................................ 5
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005 ................... 7
The Franchise in Victoria: How did we get here? ........... 9
Interest in the affairs of the state ................................... 18
Intellectual and moral capacity ..................................... 22
Legal and Practical Considerations ............................... 29
Conclusion .................................................................... 31
Bibliography ................................................................. 32
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
-4-
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to profusely thank Dr. Christopher Gribbin for academic and
personal support during the compilation of this report. Additionally, Paul ThorntonSmith of the VEC’s Communications, Education and Research branch and the staff of
the Parliamentary Library were invaluable sources of information and assistance. I
would also like to thank Dr. Jennifer Curtin and Nerillee Miller for setting up the
Professional Internship, which is an invaluable resource for those of us who don’t
want to become politicians. Finally, I would like to thank the rest of CERB for the
seemingly unending supply of cake.
Barbara Kerr
21/10/05
-5-
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
-6-
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
The history of the right to vote for the Victorian Parliament is not simply a matter of
historical interest. Reasons given by lobbyists and legislators for the extension or
restriction of the franchise, and the difference in reasoning through time, assists us in
forming legislation and setting up an administrative framework to effectively run
elections in line with the community’s expectation of democracy. We have moved
from a situation in which only a small proportion of adult men could vote, to a
situation where almost all adult citizens not only can vote, but are expected to vote. In
this environment, exclusions to the franchise must be considered very carefully.
This essay provides a historical overview of the reasoning involved in decisions to
enfranchise or disenfranchise certain groups of people at the State level in Victoria. It
covers what could be called philosophical reasoning rather than other factors – for
instance, I do not include the role of lobby groups, as such, but refer only to the
reasoning employed by lobby groups. Nor do I discuss external pressures on
politicians – for instance, the political pressure on Premier Thomas Bent in 1908 to
persuade him to support women’s suffrage must have been terrific, given his absolute
intransigence on the subject up until this time, but that is not my concern in this essay.
In general, I only discuss legislation specifically related to the franchise itself, not
related Acts or regulations that might assist in realising the right to vote (such as the
ability to vote by post). In turn, there is almost no discussion of groups who are or
were effectively excluded by practice rather than legislation – for instance, indigenous
people were never mentioned in legislation relating to the right to vote at the State
level in Victoria, unlike the Commonwealth, which explicitly disenfranchised
“aboriginal native[s] of Australia Asia Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New
Zealand”1. These topics deserve far greater attention than I can give them in the space
of this essay.
What this essay does cover is a factual overview of the legislation relevant to enabling
Victorians to vote at the State (or colony) level, followed by further examination of
some of the themes found in arguments about extending or restricting the franchise.
Of necessity, each theme contains a brief overview, and this essay is not intended to
1
Commonwealth Franchise Act, 1902, #8
-7-
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
be exhaustive. The reader should come away with a general idea of why people think
certain groups should or shouldn’t vote for the legislature of Victoria.
Arguments used in discussing changes to the franchise, whether by opponents or
supporters of the change, can be broadly classified into several related themes –
-
democratic norms and natural rights;
-
the nature of the prospective voter’s interest in the running of the state and
formulation of legislation;
-
the intellectual and moral features of the voter themselves; and
-
legal and practical considerations, such as what other states or even nations are
doing about the right to vote.
In order to analyse how these themes emerged, we must establish what these changes
were, and when they occurred.
-8-
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
The Franchise in Victoria: How did we get here?
Australia’s first election was held in the colony of NSW, then including what would
later become Victoria, in 1843. The 1842 New South Wales Constitution Act (UK)
provided for the establishment of a Legislative Council, two-thirds of which would be
popularly elected, the remaining one-third to be appointed by the Crown. Men holding
£200 freehold property or paying £20 per year were permitted to vote for men who
held £2000 freehold property or paid £100 per year.2
The legal and philosophical framework in the colonies reflected that of Britain. The
1832 Reform Bill had given British men with an income of £10 per year the right to
vote for Members of the House of Commons. Although this swelled the ranks of
Britons entitled to vote by about two-thirds, it still meant that only 20% of British
men had the right to vote for their parliament.3 In addition, electorates were
horrendously malapportioned, with sparsely populated towns able to elect the same
amount of members as big cities, and elections were held publicly, enabling
landowners and other powerful interests to use intimidation and bribery to force their
residents to vote for particular candidates.4 Similar problems would later prevail in
colonial elections.
Agitation for self-rule in the colonies at this time took place in the context of power
struggles between former convicts and free settlers. During the 1830s, the British
government began a free settlement scheme, followed by officially ending
transportation to New South Wales. Free settlers feared the influence of the exconvicts, many of whom were wealthy and influential, and easily met property
requirements set by the Reform Bill in Britain. Therefore, the settlers opposed having
an elected body. Once the free settlers began to outnumber former convicts, it was
safe to allow a partially-elected parliament!5
In 1850, the Australian Constitutions Act created the independent colony of Victoria,
and also spelled out the qualifications for the electors of the remaining part of New
Hirst, John (2002) Australia’s Democracy: a short history, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards
Pickering, Paul. A., Chapter 2 “A wider field in a new country: Chartism in Colonial Australia” in
Sawer, Marian (ed) (2001), Elections: Full, Free & Fair, The Federation Press, Annandale
4
ibid.
5
Hirst, op. cit.
2
3
-9-
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
South Wales. It halved the property qualification to £100 freehold or £10 rent per
year, and also permitted eligible men who held squatter’s licences to vote. When
elections were held in 1851 in the newly-independent colonies, including Victoria,
these qualifications would have applied. When Britain passed the Victoria
Constitution Act (UK) in 1855, it created a Parliament with two houses. The
following property qualifications applied:
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (LOWER HOUSE)
Own freehold property to the value of £50 (or £5 per year)
or pay £10 rent per year
or have an income of £100 per year
or have paid for the right to occupy “any Portion of the Waste Lands of the
Crown” for twelve months or more
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (UPPER HOUSE)
Own freehold property to the value of £1000 (or £100 per year)
or pay £100 rent per year
or have a professional qualification (such as ministers of religion, officers of
the armed forces or university graduates) 6
The professional qualification allowed educated men who did not own property or
have a high income to vote for the Legislative Council. Prospective voters should
have lived in the state for one year prior to registering, and be a native-born or
naturalised British subject. Electors could vote where they lived, or where they held
property of a certain value (effectively giving people who lived in a different
electorate to where they owned property plural votes – the ability to do this was
abolished in 1899).
Having achieved self-government, Victorians began to express an interest in dropping
the property qualifications. In Britain, workers organized themselves to promote the
acceptance of The People’s Charter, published in 1838 by the London Working Men’s
Association. It demanded full manhood suffrage – that is, the right of all adult men to
vote, without qualification. Agitation by “Chartists” took the form of armed protest as
6
Victoria Constitution Act (UK), 1855, CAP. LV
- 10 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
well as peaceful petitioning, and several Chartists were transported to the colonies as
convicts. Later, when the Chartist movement was dying out in Britain, many came to
Victoria to take advantage of the gold rush.7 Their influence shows in the demands of
the Ballarat Reform League, which included very similar wording to The People’s
Charter and included manhood suffrage.
In November 1857, property qualifications for the Legislative Assembly were
dropped, but remained for the Legislative Council. Raymond Wright attributes the
Parliament’s willingness to broaden the franchise to the fact that “since 1855, any
colonist holding a £1 miner’s licence could vote” (because they were entitled to
occupy “any Portion of the Waste Lands of the Crown”),8 leading to an imbalance of
voters in favour of miners, many of whom had come to Victoria from all over the
world, with no intention of staying after they had made their fortune. The debates on
this subject are discussed in the section on interest in the affairs of the state.
In 1863, the Electoral Act enfranchised all ratepayers on municipal rolls for
Legislative Assembly elections. This had the effect of allowing a small minority of
women, who had been permitted to vote in council elections, to vote for the
Legislative Assembly, which they did in late 1864. The Electoral Act was hastily
reworded to ensure only male ratepayers were enfranchised in 18659.
Whereas previous versions of the Constitution specified only that new electors should
be able to read or write (that is, electors who enrolled after 1857), the Constitution Act
Amendment Act of 1890 forbade anyone receiving “charitable relief as an inmate of
any eleemosynary” to vote. This innovation is discussed in the section on the
intellectual and moral capacity of voters.
In 1901, Victoria became part of the Commonwealth of Australia, and in 1902, the
Commonwealth Franchise Act was passed, which specified that all born or
naturalized subjects of the Crown “not under twenty-one years of age whether male or
female married or unmarried” who had lived in Australia for 6 months could vote at
the Federal level. It explicitly excluded any “aboriginal native of Australia Asia
Sawer, Marian, Chapter 1 “Pacemakers for the World?” in Sawer, op.cit.
Wright, Raymond (1992), A People’s Counsel: A History of the Parliament of Victoria 1856-1990,
Oxford University Press, South Melbourne: 38
9
Wright, op.cit.
7
8
- 11 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand” and persons “of unsound
mind” or who had been convicted of an offence that would attract a sentence of one
year or more10. Note that at this stage, women were explicitly excluded from voting in
Victoria, but “aboriginal natives” were never explicitly referred to in Victorian
legislation (possibly because requirements of literacy and not receiving charity would
have excluded them without naming them).
Women gained the vote in Victoria, subject to the same qualifications as men, in 1908
with the passing of the Adult Suffrage Act. In 1910, the requirements for residence in
Victoria were eased with the requirement of residence in Victoria halved to six
months and the need to have resided in the electorate for at least one month prior to
the election introduced. During the 1920s, the Electoral Act tweaked the residence
requirements, requiring that voters be resident for 6 months in the Commonwealth
and 3 months in Victoria and one month in the subdivision of their electoral district
before applying for enrolment.
Property requirements for the Legislative Council were dropped in 1950 when the
Legislative Council Reform Act was passed. The last explicit extension of the
franchise occurred in 1973, when the Constitution Act Amendment (Qualifications)
Act lowered the voting age for Victorians to 18, coinciding with similar legislation at
the Federal level. Further amendments to voting procedures since that time have dealt
with administrative procedures which, whilst not explicitly enfranchising (or
excluding) any particular group, have facilitated the realisation of people’s existing
right to vote (such as provisions to allow homeless people to enrol in an electorate
where they have a connection). The 1986 Constitution Act Amendment (British
Subjects) Act preserved the right of residents who were British in nationality and
already on the electoral roll to vote, but no new inclusions to the franchise have been
made.
The current franchise encompasses Australian citizens and those British subjects
covered by the above act, over the age of 18, who have lived at their primary place of
residence for at least one month. Voters who normally live in Victoria but are staying
interstate or overseas may remain enrolled at their primary place of residence
provided that they intend to return within a reasonable time. They must not be serving
10
Commonwealth Franchise Act, op.cit.
- 12 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
a sentence of more than five years imprisonment, they must not have been convicted
of treason without being pardoned, and they must not be “of unsound mind”11.
11
Electoral Act, 2002, #23/2002
- 13 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Democratic norms and natural rights
Graeme Orr, in arguing against the disenfranchisement of prisoners, highlights the
very powerful normative ideology of democracy – “today we all claim to be
democrats… it is our central, even axiomatic, political value”.12 The franchise is the
pre-eminent symbol of democracy, and today, “the franchise is generally conceived as
the universal right of all adults to a single, equal vote”.13
Conceptions of the right to vote as being natural have been used from the very
beginning of Victoria’s political history. At this stage, democracy was by no means
axiomatic, and activists seeking its promotion often had to distance themselves from
the label “democrat”, which had associations with “Chartism, Communism or
Republicanism” and violent agitation.14 Nevertheless, in 1856 several members of
Victoria’s Parliament were elected on the basis of their espousal of democratic
principles such as manhood suffrage, and even those who were not felt compelled to
pay lip service to at least some of the more palatable democratic concerns. Statements
by the candidates include the nominee’s thoughts on property qualifications for
electors, protection of the new secret ballot, universal education and the use of Crown
lands.15
In the Parliamentary debates surrounding the Electoral Act Amendment Bill in 1856,
a Mr. Fyfe contended that
…man had an inherent right which was above any acquired one, to political
privileges. He [i.e. Mr. Fyfe] believed in the law of nature which is anterior to
all written law; he believed in moral right which is or ought to be the
foundation of all social or political law; and by the express provision of the
great charter of English liberty, every thing that a man possessed was
absolutely his own, and to take away any thing from him without his consent,
12
Orr, Graeme, Ballotless and behind bars: the denial of the franchise to prisoners. [Based on paper
presented to Australian Society of Legal Philosophy. Conference (1996: University of Queensland )],
Federal Law Review, v.26, no.1, 1998: (55)-82
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/2000/Z2000-Oct26/http://law.anu.edu.au/publications/flr/vol26no1/ORR.htm
Accessed 29/09/05
13
Ibid.
14
Hirst, op. cit.: 55
15
Argus, July 29-31, 1856
- 14 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
is a violation of this great original law of nature, and of the rights of man; and
it was for the protection of this great natural and moral right that the elective
franchise was conferred, and a representative form of government created. If a
man were deprived of those rights, and yet compelled to pay towards the
public revenue, an injustice was perpetrated on him.16
No-one in this debate objects to manhood suffrage – in fact, almost every member of
the Assembly falls over himself to assert his support for it. The objections to the oneman-one-vote concept centre around the right of property to a vote, and the
desirability of plural voting. In other words, every man should have a vote, but those
with property should have more votes. A Mr. Blair stated that
… let property find it’s [sic] own natural action. (Hear.) If they must have the
two principles enunciated in this bill, let wealth be represented in the Upper
House, and high intelligence in the Lower.17 (VPD, Dec 1856: 104)
It is worth noting that in that particular debate, very few speakers openly espoused
this notion. Even so, Victoria did not end plural voting at the state level until 1899.
The suffrage movement also invoked natural rights, quoting extensively from J. S.
Mill and even calling on Biblical authority:
In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female but all
are one. Women as well as men are commanded ‘to call no man master.’
Nowhere is it said in the Bible to women “Thou shalt not vote.”18
Audrey Oldfield highlights the relationship between natural rights and more practical
issues for the suffragists, with natural rights acting as a backdrop to practical issues
that needed to be raised to counter the arguments of anti-suffragists, who tended to
argue that women were an exception to the democratic principle because of their
nature.19 These arguments will be dealt with in the next section.
16
VPD, v1, December 1856: 105
ibid: 104
18
Women’s Christian Temperance Union pamphlet, illustrated in Lees, Kirsten (1995) Votes for
Women: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards: 84
19
Oldfield, Audrey, (1992) Woman Suffrage in Australia: A Gift or a Struggle? Cambridge University
Press, Oakleigh
17
- 15 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
By the time the final property qualifications were being dropped for the Legislative
Council in 1950, no one was questioning the concept of universal adult suffrage. The
Liberal Party countered the alliance of the Country Party and ALP by suggesting that
universal franchise for the Upper House should be accompanied by a system of
proportional representation similar to that which had just been introduced for the
Commonwealth Senate, but were very careful to preface their remarks by stating that
of course they supported adult suffrage. The ALP, in turn, accused the Liberals of
trying to “preserve this institution of property and privilege”,20 and remarked
From 1939 to 1945, this country was involved in a world struggle in which
millions of people lost their lives and millions of pounds were spent in the
preservation of our democratic system. However, in spite of that, four States in
Australia have retained Upper Houses, and thousands of ex-service men and
women, together with other citizens, are not entitled to record their votes at
Legislative Council elections.21
Whatever the motivations of the Liberal Party, at no point did they explicitly suggest
that people who owned property were somehow more worthy of a vote than people
who did not. The entirety of the Opposition’s argument lies in the suggestion that the
ALP were introducing universal franchise in the Legislative Council with a view to
abolishing it entirely, and to a lesser extent, on the idea that two Houses of Parliament
with identical voting systems basically replicate each other’s functions. A hint is
dropped as to their feelings on the present system – the Leader of the Opposition
refers to the “head of the household franchise” and says in passing that “there is some
merit in it”22, and an ALP member damningly quotes the Liberal Member for
Dandenong as saying that “I see nothing wrong with the head of the house, who has
the responsibility of managing his home and family, electing members of a House of
Review which could be used for the purpose of making abortive this attempt at an
unholy alliance of incompatibles in politics [i.e. the ALP and Country Party]”.23 John
20
VPD, v232, 23 August 1950: 447
ibid.
22
ibid.: 421
23
ibid.: 455
21
- 16 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Cain Sr. summed up the Liberal Party’s agenda – “Its sole objective in this instance is
to flog the Country party.”24
24
ibid.: 448
- 17 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Interest in the affairs of the state
A consistent theme in discussion of the franchise is the interest that citizens have in
the running of the state and drafting of its laws. Every single discussion of groups that
may be enfranchised or disenfranchised refers to this issue, encapsulated in the slogan
“No taxation without representation”. Recent discussion has built on this argument to
point out that while a person may not be taxed as such, they still have such an interest
(e.g. youths, prisoners, the homeless).
The Victorian Parliamentary Debates over the Electoral Act Amendment Bill in 1856
devoted much time and energy to thrashing out what sort of person (or indeed entity)
had the right to elect legislators. Much of the debate on this Bill surrounded the
reduction of the residential requirement to six months, and whether this was enough
time to have established a link to the colony. Those arguing against the inclusion of a
residential clause pointed out that it had the effect of disenfranchising miners (which
may or may not have been the point). Those arguing for the clause pointed out that it
was unfair to “give a man who had no stake or footing in the colony the same
privileges as the men whose interests were entirely bound up in the colony. No man
should have a voice in making the laws of the colony unless he were an inhabitant of
the colony – a bona fide member of the community”.25
In the middle of a gold rush, significant amounts of prospective electors moved from
place to place, and might be able to register, through the purchase of a miner’s right,
in multiple seats. In theory, such a person could choose to vote in whichever seat they
desired at the last minute. There was no evidence of this having happened, and
concurrent with this view was the notion that it was desirable that a person who
owned property in two different electoral districts, or who lived in one district and
owned property in another, should have a vote in each district (plural voting).
However, this view was under attack even in 1856:
25
VPD, vol. 1, December 1856: 98
- 18 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Mr Goodman: “It was time now that any vote in this colony in reference to
property should pass away. Was property taxed, and, if not, why should it
return members to that council?”26
While plural voting is not the focus here, the reasons that plural voting was acceptable
are illustrative of the reasoning in permitting particular groups to vote. In 1891,
Captain Taylor argued that
…take the case of a gentleman who has a warehouse or office in Melbourne,
and who resides in one of the suburban constituencies. Where does he possess
his interest? If you answer that his interest is in the suburban constituency,
surely you must allow that he has… an equal interest in the city, and there may
be questions on which his interest in the suburb conflicts with his interest in
the city.27
It is worth noting that until 2005, plural voting was still the case at the municipal
level, where it was accepted that a property or business owner has an interest in laws
that directly affect their concerns in a ward within one municipality (and which may
be completely different to the laws and concerns in the ward in which they actually
reside).
Similar reasoning informed the discussion on giving women the franchise. Mr.
Munro, arguing in 1891 for the women’s franchise, listed women’s activities in the
community:
What position do women hold among us? They are largely engaged in
teaching our youth. They are the best nurses in our hospitals. They take their
lives in their hands as nurses on the battle-field, and they have entire charge of
domestic affairs. In some congregations women vote like men. They hold real
estate in shares and public companies.28
Furthermore:
26
ibid.: 103
VPD, vol. 67, 1891: 1632
28
ibid.: 1618
27
- 19 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
…one of the leading principles of the democrat’s creed is that taxation and
representation must go together. According to Hayter, there are 120,000
women above the age required by this Bill to qualify women for voting who
are earning their own living in this colony at the present time. These women
are taxed in the same way as men, and we do them an absolute injustice as
long as we tax them and will not allow them to have a vote in the
representation.29
In reference to women’s specific concerns, Dr. Maloney pointed out that:
…the honorable member for Eastern Suburbs… stated… that women cannot
be soldiers… but if women are not fit to fight in battle, at any rate they have
the greatest right to say whether their brothers or husbands shall fight in an
unnecessary war… It is not alone the soldiers who fight in battle that suffer;
the women and children suffer afterwards.30
When the voting age was lowered all over Australia in the early 1970s, a Law Reform
Commission report in NSW highlighted the fact that “while in 1911 of this group [1820 year olds] 1.5 per cent of males and 11.9 per cent of females were married, by
1966 these figures were 5 per cent and 25 per cent; that people at 18 were earning
higher salaries than ever before; and that there was greater evidence of home
ownership in this group”31 – presumably indicating that they will be paying taxes and
administering homes and families. Gribbin enumerates a number of reasons that 16-17
year olds have an interest in the affairs of state, including their involvement (actual or
potential) in education, employment and taxpaying, and receipt of government
benefits, and concludes that “It is hard to think of an argument that would show that
16 and 17 year olds do not have a substantial stake in government decisions… Indeed,
arguments cited for not giving 16/17 year olds the vote generally rely on reasons to
exclude them rather than on denying their stake.”32 In short, exclusion of 16-17 year
olds is based on their perceived intellectual capacity rather than on their interest as
citizens.
29
ibid.: 1622
ibid.: 1641
31
Puplick, Christopher J., (1971), “Lowering Australia’s Voting Age”, Politics, v6 (2), November
1971: 193
32
Gribbin, Christopher (2004) “Lowering the Voting Age: A discussion of the issues from the
Victorian Electoral Commission’s perspective’, VEC
30
- 20 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Advocates for enfranchisement of prisoners largely base their arguments on prisoner’s
continuing interest in legislation. Prisoner advocacy groups argue that “Although
detained, prisoners are still citizens who are affected by government policy. Prisoners
also have family and friends on the outside. When they finish their sentence they will
join the world outside and be affected by government policy. They should have a right
to determine what sort of health; housing, social security and jobs are available on the
outside.”33
Anon., (2004) “The History of the Prisoner Vote”, The Australian Prisoners’ Election Newspaper,
http://www.justiceaction.org.au/actNow/Briefs_PDF/Elect_Nwspr.pdf, accessed 22/09/2005
33
- 21 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Intellectual and moral capacity
Arguments by supporters or opponents of extended suffrage often hinged on the
intellectual and moral features of the aspirant voters. Historically, there has been a
dual line of thought in reference to the intellectual and moral capacity of voters – both
that a particular class of voter will have an effect on Parliament and legislation, and
that having the franchise will have an effect on the voter themselves. Those in favour
of extending the vote pointed to the hard work, intelligence, and superior morality and
behaviour of the group to be enfranchised, and the enlightening effect of being able to
vote. Those against claimed that the group to be enfranchised were intellectually
inferior, by reason of biology or age, and, in the case of women, that their supposed
superior morality would be compromised by being involved in public life.
One almost universally accepted limitation on the franchise is the exclusion of anyone
who “by reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature
and significance of enrolment and voting”34. Being able to comprehend the meaning
of voting has always been part of the franchise. The 1863 Electoral Act specified that
no one could vote who was “receiving relief as an inmate of any eleemosynary or
charitable institution”35. This was not aimed simply at poor people: these institutions
were for the care of elderly people, with some crossover with the membership of
“lunatic asylums”,36 and the intention was that people who were senile should not be
able to vote. Debates on the phrase “inmates of eleemosynary or charitable
institutions” in 1910, for the Electoral Law Amendment Bill, hinged on the injustice
of assuming that everyone who was in an institution was senile, whereas every elderly
person not in an institution was mentally fit to vote. In addition, people living in
charitable institutions were allowed to vote at the Federal level! However, opposition
to this clause was not just based on the notion that old people may indeed be both
competent and interested in politics. Proponents of dropping the clause also referred
to the fact that many of the elderly inmates were “pioneers, who, in their earlier days,
have done so much service to the State”.37
34
For example, Constitution Act 1975, #8750/1975, s.48
Electoral Act, 1863, #168
36
VPD, v124: 417-8
37
ibid.: 420
35
- 22 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Similarly, children and young people are expected not to have the maturity or
intellectual capacity to fully comprehend the meaning of voting, and discussions of
the ideal voting age centre around when most people would be old enough to do this.
Gribbin cites four reasons primarily given for not permitting people beneath a certain
age to vote: lack of maturity, lack of life experience, apathy and ignorance.38
Discussion surrounding the decision to lower the voting age to 18 made particular
reference to the fact that people aged 18-20 in the early 1970s were engaging in
activities which 18-20 year olds had previously not done in such great numbers, such
as marrying, buying homes and working,39 which might reasonably imply a greater
level of maturity and life experience. Even today, the value of extending the vote to
16-17 year olds is held as policy by the Australian Greens party, a NSW
representative of which recently stated that “it seems absurd that in this country one
cannot vote until one is 18 years but at 15 one can leave school, take up full-time
work and pay tax. At the age of 16 one can leave home, join the navy, sign a legally
binding apprenticeship contract, be declared bankrupt, have children, join most
political parties and learn to drive. At 17 one can enlist in the air force or army”.40 As
for apathy and ignorance, these qualities may apply to anyone of any age.
In analysing arguments used by activists for women’s suffrage, it needs to be strongly
kept in mind that groups who campaigned publicly fell along a more-or-less
recognisable left-right spectrum (or perhaps a left-centre spectrum). It is very
important not to mix up the often similarly-named groups. The United Council for
Women's Suffrage was formed as an umbrella group to enable the diverse societies to
co-operate on campaigns41 – for instance, the evangelical, anti-liquor agenda of the
Women’s Christian Temperance Union differed substantially from the social
radicalism of the Australian Women’s Suffrage Society. All of the groups used
related, but often quite different reasoning in their appeals to the public and to
legislators.
Opponents of women’s suffrage relied substantially on arguments about women’s
nature and role in society. The women’s franchise was supposed to undermine the
home, lead to dissension between husband and wife, and make women ugly.
38
Gribbin, op. cit.
Puplick, op. cit.
40
Cohen, Ian, “Lowering the Voting Age in NSW”, Government News, August 2005
41
Lees, op. cit.
39
- 23 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Furthermore, their supposed moral superiority was a hazard, not a benefit, as women
did not participate in manly pursuits such as drinking in bars:
women… would sweep away out of the country every public-house that
exists… women never go into public-houses, and therefore do not know that
certain social pleasures are to be derived by going there, and that those
institutions are necessary to the community.42
In fact, it was necessary for suffragists to import speakers from South Australia to
reassure the public that “South Australian women had neither been desexed by the
experience nor used their vote to abolish football, cricket or even hunting in favour of
free love and lease marriages”.43
In response to the accusation of undermining the family, suffragists often argued that
in fact they wanted to vote to improve the family and enhance the status of mothers.
“Suffragists who were more pragmatic or politically experienced … provided constant
reassurances that women's role in public life would merely be an extension of the
maternal role, not an alternative to it and there would be no lapse in the performance
of domestic duties. As Lilian Locke said, campaigning during the lunchbreak outside
the Geelong Woollen Mills in 1904: 'No woman could be so much interested in a
budget speech or an electoral Bill to forget to put the chops on.' ”44
Campaigners for women’s suffrage often resorted to arguments about the positive
moral influence that votes for women would bring to the public arena. In particular,
the WCTU had an explicit agenda against alcohol, prostitution and violence against
women and children.45 As they lobbied for restrictions on the sale and availability of
alcohol, which they saw as the substantial reason for much of women’s misery, they
realised that governments would only listen to them if they had the vote. As a result,
the WCTU added woman suffrage to its list of demands.46 A pamphlet published by
the WCTU’s Political Education Department argued that
42
VPD, v67, 1891: 1632
Lees, op. cit.: 120
44
Sawer, Marian, (1992) Housekeeping the State: Women and Parliamentary Politics in Australia,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop17/c02.pdf, accessed 26/08/05
45
Grimshaw, Patricia, (1999) Colonising Motherhood: evangelical social reformers and Koorie women
in Victoria, Australia, 1880s to the early 1900s, Women’s History Review, 8(2)
46
Lees, op. cit.
43
- 24 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Women are more peaceable, refined chaste, [sic] temperate, economical,
humane, and law-abiding than men. These qualities will influence the
character of the Government.47
Suffragists also linked votes for women with pacifism, expecting that women would
oppose war in their role as mothers.48
A less noble aspect of some suffragists’ arguments involved contrasting the educated,
morally-enlightened New Woman, who could not vote, with the type of people who
(at least in theory) could vote. Racial hygiene and the White Australia Policy was
definitely a backdrop to some of the suffragists’ arguments, and the Australian
Woman’s Sphere ran articles complaining of the threat posed by “Asiatics” to
Australia’s wellbeing.49 It ran illustrations showing a fine-featured, elegantly dressed
woman (in one case, with a mortarboard and academic robe) surrounded by such
specimens as a half-dressed Aboriginal man holding a bottle, a Chinese man smoking
a pipe, drunkards, sailors, prizefighters and convicts. One cover features a flag stating
“THOU SHALT NOT VOTE – WOMANHOOD MADNESS CRIMINALITY”,
presumably objecting to the status of womanhood being equated with lunatics and
criminals.50
If superior morality has faded from public consciousness as a reason to be given the
vote, what of inferior morality? Electoral law has always excluded people who have
been convicted of particular crimes. However, the nature of the offence and the type
of punishment have been taken into account to varying degrees over the last 150
years.
Currently, persons serving a sentence of five years or more are disenfranchised, as is
anyone convicted of treason and not pardoned51. Treason has always featured in the
Constitution Act as a reason for disenfranchisement, and is today the only specific
crime mentioned in the Act as a reason for not being allowed to vote. When
47
Lees, op. cit.: 84
Bomford, Janette M. (1993), That Dangerous and Persuasive Woman: Vida Goldstein, Melbourne
University Press, Carlton; Oldfield, op. cit.
49
“Industrially, the coloured alien is a menace, but from an hygienic point of view, he is an ever greater
danger, since he brings with him diseases that Europeans are almost free from.” Australian Women’s
Sphere, November 10 1902: 228
50
Examples shown in Lees, op. cit.: 2 and Bomford, op. cit.
51
Constitution Act, 1975, op. cit.
48
- 25 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
considered in tandem with other exclusions, such as that of non-citizens and
expatriates with no intent of return, this makes perfect sense – the person in question
has voluntarily given up their interest in the state, whether by leaving or by assisting
another nation in eliminating the state’s sovereignty.
The Constitution Act of 1855 disqualified any prospective elector if they had been
“attainted or convicted of Treason, Felony or other infamous Offence, in any Part of
Her Majesty’s Dominions, unless he shall have received a free Pardon, or undergone
the Sentence passed on him for such offence”52. Furthermore, the Electoral Act 1857
specified that all eligible males could vote if they were “not subject to any legal
incapacity” (that is, in prison)53.
The Electoral Act of 1910 contained a wide range of categories of people who were
explicitly disqualified from voting, including the aforementioned inmates of “any
eleemosynary or charitable institution other than a hospital”, “anyone who, during the
three years prior to the election, served a term of imprisonment of three months or
more without the option of a fine”, anyone convicted of offences against the electoral
provisions in the Constitution Act or Crimes Act, such as bribing election officials,
anyone who, in the year prior to the election, has been convicted of “having been an
habitual drunkard or an idle and disorderly person or an incorrigible rogue or a rogue
and vagabond”, or of an aggravated assault on a woman or child and any man who
had “an unsatisfied order of any court for the maintenance by him of his wife or his
child or children whether legitimate or illegitimate or confinement expenses”54. In
1923, the Act was amended to exclude only anyone convicted of treason or of an
offence punishable in Victoria or “any other part of the King’s Dominions” by
imprisonment for one year or longer55.
It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Parliamentarians had in mind when creating
these exclusions. Amendments to many of these laws seem to have been passed
without discussion (for instance, I could find no reference whatsoever to prisoners in
the debates leading to the passing of the 1923 Electoral Act). The difference between
the 1910 and the 1923 versions of the Electoral Act lies in the length of sentence and
52
Victoria Constitution Act (UK), op. cit.
Electoral Act, 1857, #33
54
Electoral Act, 1910, #2288
55
Electoral Act, 1923, #3331
53
- 26 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
the dropping of any mention of particular crimes apart from treason. When the 1910
exclusions were being debated, discussion centred around the practicality of the
exclusions and whether one crime was worse than another, but not around the
desirability of excluding criminals as such. It seems that the 1923 change was more of
a rationalisation of the law rather than an attempt to enable or forbid any specific
group to vote.
Aside from the issue of voters being good enough to vote (or too bad to vote), the
franchise is supposed to have an effect on the voter themselves, as a human being. On
the presentation of the ‘monster petition’ of 30,000 signatures in favour of women’s
suffrage in 1891, Mr. Munro quoted a U.S. Senator for Wyoming, which granted
woman suffrage in 1869, on the likely effect of suffrage on women:
…suffrage is a power – a great lever for raising up all classes of society…
suffrage has been of real benefit to women… it is calculated to make her more
intelligent and thoughtful in matters that concern her own household,
especially in bringing up her growing sons and daughters. It increases her
interest in those things that concern the great body of the people.56
The WCTU’s propaganda declared that “the possession of votes would increase the
sense of responsibility amongst women towards questions of public importance” and
“public spirited mothers make public spirited sons”57. Similarly, lowering the voting
age has been thought to spark interest in public affairs amongst young people. During
the debates in Victorian Parliament, a Mr. Curnow made the odd assertion that:
In the United States of America the eighteen year old vote was granted in
1971, and it had a remarkable effect on people in that age group, in that they
then wished to work within the system rather than to destroy it, because they
had been given the right to say how the country should be run.58
Puplick reports that newspapers responded favourably to the suggestion that NSW
should lower its voting age, including a statement by the Sydney Morning Herald that
56
VPD, v67, 1891: 1619
Oldfield, op.cit.: 188
58
VPD, v.311, 1973: 3851
57
- 27 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
“such an attitude would prompt youth to act more responsibly”.59 Quite recently, the
Greens have echoed this idea, stating that
If young people were given some power to be involved in decisions made
about them, better decisions would result. This might just help reduce some of
the alienation, which the political exclusion of young people currently
causes.60
59
60
Puplick, op.cit.: 192
Cohen, op. cit.
- 28 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Legal and Practical Considerations
The importance of administrative reasons for the extension (or contraction) of the
franchise should not be forgotten. Reference to other states, to Federal legislation, and
to international obligations and precedent have all played important parts in decisions
to change the electoral qualifications. In addition, issues of electoral practice may
inadvertently exclude people from voting, and lead to changes in legislation to
address this issue.
Victoria was the last state to pass full adult suffrage at the state level, in 1908 – six
years after the Commonwealth Franchise Act enfranchised “all persons not under
twenty-one years of age whether male or female married or unmarried”61. The
anomaly of Victorian women being allowed to vote only for the Federal Parliament
(not to mention the anomaly of being the only women in Australia who could not vote
for the State Parliament) was raised by supporters of women’s suffrage during the
later debates. As mentioned previously, supporters of women’s suffrage also referred
to the overseas experience, as well as to voting in other situations such as being
shareholders in publicly-held companies and members of church congregations.
In later years, evaluation of the lowering of the voting age referred to the fact that the
Commonwealth would be lowering the voting age at the same time, and the issue of
roll-keeping convenience and of avoiding confusion in the minds of new voters. Rollkeeping convenience should not be an overriding concern – it is the job of electoral
commissions in each state to handle differences between municipal, State and
Commonwealth electoral rolls – but it was, for instance, highly influential in deciding
to change Victorian law from disenfranchising people convicted of crimes which
could attract a maximum sentence of five years or more, to disenfranchising people
who were actually serving five years or more.62
Although prisoner voting is not a hot issue in Victoria, the Commonwealth
government at the time of writing was considering disenfranchising all prisoners63.
This could have implications for Victorian law on a number of levels. Victorian
61
Commonwealth Franchise Act, op. cit.
Orr, op. cit.
63
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/10/1081326977492.html?from=storyrhs, accessed
18/11/05. Note that this editorial uses the argument of the vote having an effect on voters.
62
- 29 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
governments may choose to be influenced by Commonwealth legislation, especially if
they are of the same political party as the Commonwealth government and share
policy on this issue. Alternatively, media coverage of the issue may spark government
debate.
Australia is also a signatory to international conventions such as the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While all international law is non-binding,
discussion of extension and restriction of the right to vote often has the ICCPR as a
backdrop. Article 25 of the ICCPR “require[s] that every citizen shall have the right to
vote ‘without unreasonable restrictions’ and without any distinctions based on race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status”.64 The ICCPR also refers to the treatment of prisoners
and the aim of sanctions toward social rehabilitation, a fact used by prisoner
advocates to point out that cutting off prisoner’s right to vote is hardly calculated to
achieve this.65
Twomey, Anne (2000), “The Federal Constitutional Right to Vote in Australia”, Federal Law
Review, 28(1), http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/2000/Z2000-Oct26/http://law.anu.edu.au/publications/flr/Vol28no1/Twomey.htm#TopOfPage, accessed 05/08/05
65
Davidson, Jerome (2004) “Inside Outcasts: prisoners and the right to vote in Australia”, Current
Issues Brief No. 12 2003–04, Department of Parliamentary Services,
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2003-04/04cib12.pdf, accessed 22/09/05
64
- 30 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Conclusion
The reasoning involved in including or excluding certain groups in the franchise at the
Victorian State level is similar to that involved elsewhere. It covers broad
philosophical reasoning about natural or even ‘God given’ rights of citizens and the
interest that such citizens have in the way they are governed, the ability of such
citizens to employ informed reasoning about the way they should be governed, their
stake in society (or the abandonment of it) and the opinions of our contemporaries in
other states and countries.
This reasoning is not purely of historical interest. Several classes of citizens are not
permitted to vote, such as prisoners, people under the age of 18, those considered “of
unsound mind” and expatriates with no clear intention of returning home, and new
inclusions or exclusions may yet be made. In addition, regulations and administrative
activities take place which may assist or restrict people in voting, and in
recommending these activities (or their abolition), policymakers will draw on these
historical decisions to inform their own reasoning.
- 31 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Bibliography
Anon (2004), “The History of the Prisoner Vote”, The Australian Prisoners’ Election
Newspaper, http://www.justiceaction.org.au/actNow/Briefs_PDF/Elect_Nwspr.pdf,
accessed 22/09/2005
Bomford, Janette M. (1993), That Dangerous and Persuasive Woman: Vida
Goldstein, Melbourne University Press, Carlton
Davidson, Jerome (2004) “Inside Outcasts: prisoners and the right to vote in
Australia”, Current Issues Brief No. 12 2003–04, Department of Parliamentary
Services, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2003-04/04cib12.pdf, accessed
22/09/05
Gribbin, Christopher (2004) “Lowering the Voting Age: A discussion of the issues
from the Victorian Electoral Commission’s perspective”, VEC
Grimshaw, Patricia, (1999) Colonising Motherhood: evangelical social reformers and
Koorie women in Victoria, Australia, 1880s to the early 1900s, Women’s History
Review, 8(2)
Hirst, John (2002) Australia’s Democracy: a short history, Allen & Unwin, St.
Leonards
Lees, Kirsten (1995) Votes for Women: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, St.
Leonards
Oldfield, Audrey (1992), Woman Suffrage in Australia: A Gift or a Struggle?
Cambridge University Press, Oakleigh,
Orr, Graeme, Ballotless and behind bars: the denial of the franchise to prisoners.
[Based on paper presented to Australian Society of Legal Philosophy. Conference
(1996: University of Queensland )], Federal Law Review, v.26, no.1, 1998: (55)-82
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/2000/Z2000-Oct26/http://law.anu.edu.au/publications/flr/vol26no1/ORR.htm
Accessed 29/09/05
Pickering, Paul. A., Chapter 2 “A wider field in a new country: Chartism in Colonial
Australia” in Sawer, Marian (ed) (2001), Elections: Full, Free & Fair, The Federation
Press, Annandale
Puplick, Christopher J., (1971), “Lowering Australia’s Voting Age”, Politics, v6 (2),
November 1971, p188-200.
Sawer, Marian, Chapter 1 “Pacemakers for the World?” in Sawer, Marian (ed) (2001),
Elections: Full, Free & Fair, The Federation Press, Annandale
Sawer, Marian, (1992) Housekeeping the State: Women and Parliamentary Politics in
Australia, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop17/c02.pdf, accessed 26/08/05
- 32 -
Barbara Kerr
The State Franchise in Victoria, 1842-2005
Twomey, Anne (2000), “The Federal Constitutional Right to Vote in Australia”,
Federal Law Review, 28(1), http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/2000/Z2000-Oct26/http://law.anu.edu.au/publications/flr/Vol28no1/Twomey.htm#TopOfPage,
accessed 05/08/05
Wright, Raymond (1992), A People’s Counsel: A History of the Parliament of
Victoria 1856-1990, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne
- 33 -