Colonial Struggle For A United Federated Nation example essay topic

Report Issue: Discuss the reasons for Federation and the chief problems faced by those responsible for drafting the Australian constitution. Do the same problems face those wanting to introduce an Australian republic?' 1 Preface: The Australian colonial struggle for a united federated nation is well documented. Predominantly the birth of Federation is termed as having its beginnings in the 1890's. However, its origins date to 1846 when Lord Grey first proposed a central authority.

However, the premise that Federation began taking shape when the first colonial fleet landed could be advanced. A mixture of ruling class elite, military, convicts and freemen were deposited on the shores of a vast continent, and were told to survive and develop a nation. As each problem presented itself, new methods were developed in response. For example, a shortage of labour meant convicts were treated as freemen, earning wages and given the right to purchase land, practices unheard in British law, but essential to colonial survival. This evolutionary process required modifications to laws, social structures and beliefs.

Over time, Australian-based thoughts and actions developed and flourished - survival making evolution essential. Independence and autonomy underpinned colonial actions leading to expectations of self-determination. This ultimately advanced to federation. 2 Introduction: 2.1 Psychological Considerations: Any discussion attributing thoughts and perceptions, must necessarily address psychological factors which predetermine and unconsciously link thoughts and actions. This essay does not pretend to address the many issues that prompted people to travel huge distances from their homeland to remain in uncharted colonies. Rather, it is read their motivations were affected and determined by the primary disciplines of sociology, anthropology, psychology and education.

All are fundamental to human thoughts and actions, which ultimately influence historical interpretations to determine future outcomes. Human behaviour and thought processes are learnt from infancy and develop daily. Generations pass ideologies to the next, building beliefs and opinions. Without conscious thought, individual perceptions are determined. The well-known saying 'Men are what their mothers made them's would in fact continue with '... and historical influences made their mothers'. Hence, historical factors must be considered when assessing the reasons for Federation, and any resultant effect these may have on an Australian republic.

2.2 Historical Considerations: Historically, the first colonial governing institutions were ultimately viewed as uncaring ruling elites disinterested in the people they administered, and is suggested by many to be a prime motivation for Federation. Whilst valid, adherence to traditions, historical perceptions and the mental security of limited change, ensured our Founding Fathers could not mentally allow the destruction of all ties to the Imperial structure. All were educated under the British educational structure; all had their traditions and beliefs firmly centred in an English-based approach. Their historical backgrounds predetermined perceptions of justice, fairness, equity and requirements for this newly emerging nation. This does not imply all were identical men, rather, history had predetermined their perceptions of principles, resulting in an inability to accept a drastic amendment to the rule of law that existed in the 1850's to 1900. Preservation of history and tradition provides social cohesion, inherently endowing institutions with authority.

The framework for Federation was steeped in history and tradition, including adoption of the Magna Carta, reliance upon a centuries-old Imperial structure and psychological factors. The ultimate Constitution, and the debates which formed it, were no exception. The prime cornerstones of the Constitution were rule of law, attempts at fairness and justice for the people it served and a fundamental belief the instrument protected citizens rights and obligations. To appreciate the perceptions determining Federation, and obstacles which arose, an historical perspective must be addressed. 2.2. 1 Rule for the People or Rule for the Elite?

: Western Australia was governed from afar during its infant years. General feelings of distrust, dislocation and of an uncaring distant Parliament were experienced. Mr. Walter Bagehot (1867) demonstrated this: 'A Colonial Governor is a ruler who has no permanent interest in the colony he governs; who perhaps had to look for it in the map when he was sent thither, who takes years before he really understands its parties and its controversies; who, though without prejudice himself, is apt to be a slave to prejudices of near him; who inevitably, and almost laudably governs not in the interest of the colony, which he may mistake, but in his own interest, which he sees and is sure of. ' British appointed Governors had supreme control and were drawn from the ranks of the British military and public service; personal connections being essential. In this era, Imperial supreme control denied the requirements of colonial situations. All petitions were presented to the Governor who was at liberty to ignore them.

Only the Governor could formally communicate with the British Parliament. Colonialists were given little encouragement for self-rule or self-determination, entrenching the perception of a disinterested ruling elite. As the State developed, so did the cry for self-determination. This is epitomized in an 1888 election speech. The contest was between an immigrant Irishman, John Horgan, and a member of the ruling elite, Septimius Burt. Mr. Horgan stated: 'the press has been teeming with instances of gross mismanagement on the part of the Governor - and I say the Governor because he is the Czar of Western Australia.

He is the despot of Western Australia, and we are actually nauseated with the attacks of that man. ' Mr. Horgan's electoral win demonstrated colonial perceptions of dislocation and distrust; perceptions built and solidified over generations. Importantly, this did not portray a rejection of the system per se, but rather a need for self-determination by people who understood colonial needs. It is significant all colonies developed a system of government and justice based upon the foundations, and in some cases replication, of the Westminster systems, demonstrating an acceptance and requirement of these structures.

It is not surprising therefore, the Constitution Bills were predicated upon the rule of law and Imperial systems. 3 Federation: 3.1 The Inevitability of Federation: Australia had been settled for less than 100 years when the first serious, and public, calls for self-rule were heard under the guise of a 'central Federal authority' to manage the affairs of the unwieldy massive continent hampered by lack of communication and transport infrastructure and abilities. This call came at a time when Australia was young, undeveloped, State boundaries had not been set, Imperial law prevailed and no formal complete social or political structures had been set. Further, the initial proposal was developed by Britain's Colonial Secretary, not an Australian desirous of relinquishing ties with an Imperial command too far removed, as may have been expected. Unfortunately, Earl Grey presented his 1846 proposal in its entirety without consultation with the very people it would affect, Australians.

Rejection to the mode of presentation was immediate; ensuring the merits of the proposal itself had no chance of serious debate. Only one year later, the 'central authority' principle was commended to the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament. Rejection this time was led by the proposition of NSW dominance in any such scheme. Importantly, the concept itself was not rejected. Rather, discussions were held promulgating the concept of a Federal scheme. Suggestions came from both British authorities and Colonial Legislatures alike and Select Committees were formed to address the issue.

The concept of 'Federation' had taken hold and would not be relinquished. 3.2 The Reasons for Federation: Many and varied reasons have been advanced for the impetus of federation; ranging from defence and immigration matters, economic requirements of advancing interstate trade, inconsistent laws between colonies and general 'kinship'. However, to fully appreciate the extensive range of matters under discussion, it is important to read the words of one of the foremost federation advocates, Sir Henry Parkes when opening the first Australasian Federation Conference: 'On the ultimate necessity of a federal union... the interest and honour of these growing states would be promoted by the establishment of a system of mutual action and co-operation among them. Their interest suffers... while competing tariffs, naturalization laws, and land systems, rival schemes of immigration and of ocean postage, a clumsy and an inefficient method of communicating with each other and with the home Government on public business, and a distant and expensive system of judicial appeal exist... and the honour and importance which constitute so essential an element of national prosperity, and the absence of which invites aggression from foreign enemies, cannot perhaps, in this generation, belong to any single colony in this southern group, but may... be speedily attained by an Australian Federation would... immensely economise their strength and resources.

They would substitute a common national interest for local and conflicting interests, and waste no more time in barren rivalry. They would enhance the national credit, and attain much earlier the power of undertaking works of serious cost and importance. They would not only save time and money, but attain increased vigour and accuracy, by treating the larger questions of public policy at one time and place... they would set up a safeguard against violence or disorder, holding it in cheek by the common sense and common force of the federation. They would possess the power of... enabling each of the existing states to apply itself without conflict or jealousy to the special industry which its position and resources render most profitable... '. Thus the process of Federation began.

Debate within the Conferences and Conventions took a similar vein, predominantly revolving around economic issues. Formally, the precise issue of an uncaring Imperial rule was not voiced. However, many examples may be cited indicating that this was still strongly felt. For example, when discussing land rents to colonial governments, Sir J.G. Lee-Steer e stated: 'We would far rather that should be made over to a Federal Government than that it should be administered by a Government in England unacquainted with the circumstances of the colony, but I do not think that Western Australia would be prepared to make over the revenue of the northern portion of the colony for the purposes of a Federal Government. ' However, the requirement for self-rule was frequently, and explicitly, referred. It was advanced that the Commonwealth of Australia would be better served by having a mixture of republican-styled structure based on the Westminster system.

For example: 'I have now shown pretty clearly that it is impossible, under the present circumstances of Australia, that we could enter into a complete federal dominion on the basis of that of Canada, because of the financial and the fiscal difficulties... The question next arises, whether, if we find it impossible to enter into a federal dominion... we cannot agree to enter into a federation not quite so complete as that... ' 3.3 Overriding Impasse to Federation - States' Rights: '... the federation of Australia is desirable. Whether it is practicable is another matter... The question is-Will these different colonies... permit such a federation... ?' The process of federation was plagued from conception by capricious bickering colonies, predisposed with self-interest, stalling legislative processes and doggedly protecting their newly-found independence.

For example, it took two years for all colonies to agree to a draft constitution being submitted to the people by referenda. Even this agreement had caveats placed upon it by Western Australia and Queensland. The issue of States' rights was laid firmly and resolutely on the table in the first Conference, where delegates were of the opinion the colonies would not accept a Federal Executive. All later Conferences experienced States' rights being raised with varying degrees of precision and frankness.

Often this was cloaked under the guise of national interest issues and defence. However, the true issue at hand was never far from the surface; States' rights. Individual colonies wanted supremacy over the others, and were concerned another would be in a position to interfere or dictate. This affected, and indeed dictated, substantial portions of the constitution to ensuring States' rights were safeguarded. Further evidence of the desire to attain federation, and the requirement to overcome the issue of States' rights can be seen in the 1898 insertion of section 95, specifically allowing Western Australia to impose duties. This was not contained in the 1891 draft and was raised in every Conference from 1891 to 1898.

Hence, it is not intended to address the specific matters which cloaked States' rights. Rather, it is argued this was the overriding prerequisite to overcome to achieve federation and was succinctly stated by Sir Samuel Griffith: '... A Federal Parliament... must supersede the provincial Parliaments, and compel them to surrender some of their functions... let us get a complete Federal Parliament and Federal Executive, one Dominion with no rivalries -no customs rivalries at any rate, amongst ourselves... We have been accustomed for so long to self-government...

We have been allowed absolute freedom to manage our own affairs; and I know that there are many people who, although they are favourable to the idea of federation in the abstract, would yet hesitate to give up any of those rights... The advantages of federation like everything else will have to be paid for... and every power which may be exercised by the Federal Government... involves a corresponding diminution in the powers of the separate Governments... That is the first objection with which we shall be met... '.

However, even with the final draft completed (The Commonwealth of Australia Bill), the road was not cleared for federation as the Bill had to be submitted to all colonies and gain a referendum based 'yes' result. This took a further 30 months, with Western Australia not providing a 'yes' vote until after Queen Victoria gave Royal Assent to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. 4 An Australian Republic? : In the period 1850 to 1900, Australians enjoyed increasing autonomy.

Fiercely protected and demanded, whether from a colony base or a pseudo-national base, this formed the foundation structure of all federation debates. To determine whether the same overriding impasse that confronted our Founding Fathers would also plague those wishing to institute a republic, a definition of the type of republic being proposed must be addressed. 4.1 Republican Theory Or Republican Practice? : Several authors advance the proposition that Australia is, at least substantially, a republic and as such, any further progression would require minimal, if any, constitutional amendment. Others have advanced the opposite. Each relies on the definition of 'republic', in turn determining potential constitutional amendments.

The definition of 'republic' has been transformed over centuries, as each society desirous of utilising the term, applies it to the type of government established, rather than ensuring the original definition determines the type of government. Hence, 'republic' has become '... a word of many connotations... '. The meaning has been amended in Roman and Greek BC societies, Latin interpretations and through to the more recent application by the American Founders. A common thread amongst most interpretations is the issue of where true power lies. That is, the essence of a monarchy is that all power is vested in the monarch, whereas a republic requires all power to be vested in the community.

Both structures require constitutional safeguards to ensure they do not slide into dictatorship; safeguards which are the elements that confuse monarchy with republic. When applied, they take power away from the ruling President or Monarch. This provides the basis for, in some cases, republic and monarchy to become interchangeable. There is also the issue of a 'singular' or 'compound' republic. Each style of republic would require a greater or lesser degree of constitutional amendment. If for example, a true republic were advanced, States' rights would have to be abolished, as would the Senate (or at the very least, severely curtail its powers), all reference to a monarch would have to substituted for a President, and the issue of election of the President, either popularly or appointed, would have to be addressed.

Given the history of fiercely demanded and defended States' rights, and the maintenance of such, it would be highly unlikely any call for a singular republic would survive the processes of debate, let alone referenda. 5 Conclusion: Clearly our Founding Fathers designed Australia's constitution on a mixture of monarchism, federalism and republicanism. Their ultimate goal was to ensure Australians maintained their autonomy, whilst retaining the security of not only being part of The Commonwealth, but also its history and traditions. No debate in any Convention seriously advanced the premise Australia should become purely a republic or monarchy; but autonomy and States' rights were advanced, defended and protected at all times. Based on not only Australians' history of the struggle towards federation, but also our history derived from centuries of British history, it is unlikely a true republic will advance to any form other than esoteric debate. Whilst the concept of federation was eventually accepted, serious discussion of an Australian compound republic is only just beginning in an era of economic uncertainty and distrust of federal and state governments; similar to situations experienced in the 1890's.

History will ultimately record the result.