The founding of the Australian state is often viewed as a great political success forming an egalitarian, progressive political nation. Immigrants who arrived in the country did so leaving behind all previous class inhibitions, it, like America, was a land of opportunity. There were clear differences in wealth, yet no tradition in the land divided groups of people on the grounds of rights to participate in politics as was the case across Europe. Australian history lacks an ancient nationalist cause, folk stories or the bloody revolutions seen across Europe, yet federation with its universalistic content set a precedent for a highly successful democratic system.
However, the Commonwealth Franchise Act’s neglect of the political rights of Australia’s indigenous population is often forgotten about. Although franchise was universal for all white men and women after 1902, federation left Australian democracy with a highly exclusive, racial element. Section 51 of the Australian constitution illustrates how the foundation of the Australian state had an intrinsically racist nature. It states that the Commonwealth Parliament could:
“Make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth and encompass special laws with respect to the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any state”.
The constitutional statement above was interpreted, with the power invested by law, as confirmation that aborigines, unlike their white counterparts, were not citizens of Australia.They were thus not entitled to equal rights, state benefits and equal protection. Section 51’s moral abhorrence was justified in a time of a highly suspect social science known as Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism
Thinkers such as Herbert Spencer who claimed that certain races were inherently inferior forged the theory of Social Darwinism. Therefore, as W. G McMinn considers, Aboriginal claims for citizenship were all too easy to ignore. This was due in part to the opinion held by many contemporaries that Aboriginal citizenship was foolhardy as the race was altogether doomed to extinction (1). As a result the constitution neglected the idea of universal citizenship in its true sense contributing to the exclusivity that left and arguably still leaves a stain on Australian socio-political history.
Universality Only for Whites
Australia’s birthstone of democratic rights, the 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act, also paradoxically defied democratic universality. Although it provided white men and women with unprecedented political rights it also legalized political discrimination based on race in two separate points. Point 4 most notably states:
“No aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand shall be entitled to have his name placed on the electoral roll.”
This clearly prohibited aboriginals from voting in elections. It also expands to reject the rights of peoples from an incredibly diverse number of areas in the world (Asia, Africa and Pacific Islands as well as Australia) thus, creating not only an anti-aboriginal democracy but also one that would be almost wholly white. A strict universal immigration policy was after all one of the clear goals of pro-federation politicians from the onset. One of Henry Parkes’ reasons for federation was ‘a uniform law regarding the introduction of aliens of inferior races … not only Chinese but of all Asiatic races’(2). Social Darwinist philosophy was also at the core of the political debate leading up to the Commonwealth Franchise Act. Senator Matheson of Western Australia received very limited rebuttal when he declared in parliament:
“My objection to the coloured race is a racial one. To my mind there is no difference to a logical person whether they are naturalized or not. As none of them had any cultural rights in the country from which he came”(ibid).
Lasting Impact
Other cultures are condemned for being unable to create equal, democratic systems in their own cultures. This perceived socio-cultural failing thus condemned them, in Senator Matheson’s ‘logic’, to be marginalised as unworthy in the new Australian state. The Franchise Act can also therefore be seen to have not only impacted aboriginal rights but also the harsh immigration regulation of Australia enacted through the policy of White Australia, which influenced Australian immigration policy until 1973.
Sources
(1) W. G McMinn, A Constitutional History of Australia, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) 126.
(2) Henry Parkes, Federal Government of Australasia, (Sydney: Turner & Henderson, 1890)
Session in Commonwealth Parliament 1901-2, Vol. 9 pp 11460FF (9th April 1902) in Katherine Lindsay, The Australian Constitution in Context, 9.
Patrick Skinner - I'm a political writer interested mainly in international relations as well as UK and Australian Politics. I also enjoy writing a broad ...
Join the Conversation