Hopes for a brighter future

With the content of the Australian Constitution very much in the news, I put my “historian hat” on to take a look at how the newspapers and magazines of the 1890s reported the debate about the original Australian Constitution.

During the latter part of the 1890s, the voters of six colonies in the antipodes were asked to vote on a constitution for what would become a new Country. By 1898, a series of constitutional conventions had finally settled on a proposal that consisted of 8 chapters, 128 sections and around 12000 words.

As these 12000 words were being assembled, and leading up to the final vote in each colony, there was certainly a great deal of debate. Some of the significant issues I found raised in publications at the time included “one man one vote”, “should women get the vote”, and “should the governor general be elected”. The Bulletin called the failure to require the governor general to be an elected position “constitutional treason”!

I only had time to read through a selection of the many articles I found discussing the constitution. But I did not encounter any demands to “tell us what the legislation will be before we vote”. Clearly such a request would have been recognised as complete nonsense. The Constitution made it clear. Legislation was to be the responsibility of the parliament and any Act established by Parliament could be amended or repealed by Parliament.

In fact there have been more than 1020 "principal" acts passed over the past 122 years since Federation. Many of those acts have been amended more than once and many more have been repealed, or are expired or spent.

In 1897, the publication Advance Australia stated that:

The Convention has, on the whole, done its work well. The Constitution that has been evolved is a workable one — though certain provisions have been omitted that should, in the opinions of many, have been included in it.

Advance Australia was encouraging more involvement from the community to improve the proposed constitution further.

Voters in the 1890s were certainly encouraged to consider the elements of the constitution carefully but few would have grasped the full import or potential consequences of every clause. This was a large document. It also reflects the ethos of the 1890s when it was composed - including the growing “White Australia” movement. So the proposed constitution featured two clauses concerning race. One of these, Section 51 clause (xxvi.), currently says:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:—

(xxvi.)  The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

The successful 1967 referendum removed from the original 51(xxvi.) clause the following words: “other than the aboriginal race in any state”. Back in the 1890s, the affairs and well being of Australia’s first people were considered to be the sole responsibility of the separate colonies (soon to be states). By removing those words, the 1967 referendum finally empowered the Federal Parliament to make laws in this area. Since 1967, 22 Parliamentary Acts have specifically concerned Australia’s first peoples. Eleven of those acts are still in force.

By May 1898, the vote on the constitution was rapidly approaching and the time for debate was nearly over. The following excerpts come from an item by TR Bavin in the Sydney Morning Herald May 24 1898, about 10 days before the NSW vote. I thought these words captured what the mood must have been:

Of every man in Australia it is true to say that his choice on June 3 will be the most important political action of his life. The results of that vote to the present generation will be sufficiently serious and far-reaching - to future generations of Australians they will be even of greater import. …

The choice that we have to make is between two political futures for Australia. On the one hand, there is a future bright with all the possibilities of union, on the other, a future dark with all the certainties of disunion. …

And if [the proposed constitution] has [those] qualities, which have enabled older generations of Englishmen to live, free and prosperous, under constitutions full of logical anomalies and absurdities, why should we fear to accept a constitution which certainly gives us the blessing of union, because its enemies, by means of ingenious calculations, seek to show that it may possibly rob us of some part of our voting power, or involve an addition to our taxation …

On the whole, I found the constitution debate of the 1890s mostly informed and constructive. Certainly moreso than some of the fact-free claims I have seen and heard so far in the 2023 debate.

Fortunately, when that 1890s debate was over, all six colonies did vote for hope: hope for that brighter future.