“Never before have a group of self-governing practically independent communities, without external pressure or foreign complication of any kind...come together as one people”. (1)
Robert Garran and John Quick 1901
Garran and Quick’s romantic view suggests that federation and the establishment of a Commonwealth government was a grand success, a bloodless revolution unique to Australia. The description of a coming together of ‘one people’ depicts federation as birthing a cohesive, harmonious nation. Yet, in contrast to Quick and Garran’s assessment, there is considerable evidence which indicates that, far from being a uniform, united political entity the former colonies within Australia actually still saw themselves as fiercely independent even after the establishment of a Commonwealth government.
State Rivalries
The formation of a state with a powerful centralised governing body was arguably, not the intention of federation. Conversely, the constitution was drawn with the premise of protecting the states from an overarching central power so that they could still pursue their own interests. Stuart Macintyre considers: ‘the authors (of the constitution) did not intend any thoroughgoing unification and their constitution provided a series of bulwarks against the central usurpation of powers’ (2). The constitution displayed a definite aim of limiting the power of a federal government.
The states were (and remain) protected by equal numbers in the Senate regardless of population and any kind of constitutional change would require a majority nationwide vote as well as a majority within every state. For many years after the establishment of a Commonwealth government national political unity remained elusive. State premiers and numerous officials gregariously protected state immunity from central government. One such instance was directed by New South Wales, Sir Joseph Carruthers who ordered in 1907 the sabotage of a wharf in order to avoid the state being subject to Commonwealth duty payments. At a voter rally in 1907 Carruthers went as far as to assure his electorate that:
‘Even at the risk of bloodshed they had to overcome tyranny and pull tyrants down, it would be done’(3)
The tyranny to which Carruthers refers is that of federal government. This indicates that the states, NSW in particular, were hostile to centralised government interfering with localized interests. Separatist as opposed to nationalist sentiment thus appears to have been displayed post-constitution to the contrary of Garran and Quick’s romantic outlook. The practical purpose of a federal government was also questioned by prominent political figures such as Labor Attorney-General William Holman who a decade after federation claimed:
‘After ten years I do not see any function worth speaking of carried out by the Federal Parliament that could not have been performed by a mere customs and military union among states’. (4)
An Australian national identity was weak at the turn of the twentieth century as Australia lacked a universal national belonging, evident in Europe, which had been formed by centuries of joint history and folklore. Beverley Kingston comments on the ‘ingenious’ use of Australian historical events such as the Eureka rebellion by modern commentators attempting to form a shared history, yet he insisted the main feature of this period was inter-colonial rivalry (5). John Foster Fraser in 1910 proposed that the Australian national identity existed only through the states’ competition in relations with Britain and the empire (6). Whilst it may seem trivial, especially today when viewing Australia as a relatively harmonious nation in the global sphere, rivalries between colonies sharing the same land mass, common language and ethnicity existed for decades before and after federation.
Still Reliant on Britain
Moreover it is questionable whether federation birthed a nation in a practical sense either. Australia remained bound to the mother country by ties of law, economics and sentiment. The head of state was and remains the British monarch. Australia was unable to determine its own foreign policy and all its relations outside of the Pacific were conducted in Westminster. Economically dependent on Britain, the empire in 1901 provided 70.7% of Australia’s imports and bought 74.6% of her exports. Even aside from the political, militaristic and economic reliance on Britain, whether it was perceived or actual, there was limited desire to break from the monarchy. British ideals such as that of ‘responsible government’ where there is a fusion between the executive and legislative bodies was the chosen system for the House of Representatives, which drew inspiration from the British House of Commons.
Creation of Something New
However, through the concept of federation Australia forged its own political identity. For instance, Australia opted for a federal state in order to include all states equally in the democratic process choosing not to copy the unitary government existing in Britain. Furthermore, Australia, unlike the mother country, had a written and clear constitution installed with obvious means of amending the constitution through parliament and referenda.
The constitution provided a legal framework through which democracy would be protected, after all the very formation of a federal state was confirmed through a series of referendums, the most democratic of processes. Australia diverged from Britain in installing an elected upper house in the American format known as the Senate. A symbol of a political system unaffected by class the Senate was founded on meritocratic principles.
Thus Australia took on a Benthamite character where the dogma of tradition and class was eradicated and instead a system of aiming for the most effective utility of society through universal political participation. Hugh Collins posits that it was Benthamite philosophy that forged the idea of a ‘central place of legislation through an Australian government’ (7) and that Benthamites encouraged a deep democracy so that government could pursue the self-interest of the majority. Regardless of the philosophical leanings of the founders of constitution Australia was one of the first advocates of a liberal democracy.
Federation and Female Emancipation
Federation has also been regarded as a great political achievement in the founding of contextually monumental democratic rights for both sexes. Although the constitution itself did not give women the franchise the Commonwealth Franchise Act of 1902, an extension of the process of federation, did. This was an incredibly significant reversal of centuries of political subjugation of women in most global societies. Australia became the second country in history, after New Zealand, to give women the vote and was the first nation to allow women to run for office in parliament.
Paradoxically the democratic nation state of Australia was formed from the radical international movements of socialism and feminism. These movements, which were centered on the achievement of radical change to the class and gender structures, strangely created an alternative collectivity, created in the form of a nation state. Therefore, it could be argued that, regardless of the disunity between the states, the establishment of a nation or at least a national ideology of an egalitarian society with equal and universal rights came about with federation and the Franchise Act. This in itself is not an insignificant political achievement especially when considering the highly primitive stage of democracy and rigid class structures present across Europe at this time.
(1) John Quick and Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1901), 225.
(2) Stuart Macintyre, The Oxford History of Australia, Vol. 4, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)
(3) Macintyre, The Oxford History of Australia, Vol. 4, 80.
(4) Quotation from Conrad Joyce, ‘Attempts to extent Commonwealth Power 1908-19’ in Historical Studies 9, (1959-61), 296.
(5) Beverly Kingston, The Oxford History of Australia, Vol. 3, (Oxford Uni Press, Oxford: 1988)
(6) John Foster Fraser, Australia: The making of a nation (London: Cassel, 1910) chapter 2
(7) Hugh Collins, ‘Political Ideology in Australia: The Distinctiveness of a Benthamite Society’. In Australia, the Daedalus Symposium, edited by S. R. Graubard (North Ryde, N.S.W: Angus & Robertson, 1985).
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