Introduction
The transition from colonial rule is characterized by fundamental policy changes that define a nation’s autonomy. In Australia, the Federation in 1901 was a turning point in the nation’s identity. It entailed the unification of the six different colonies to form a central government. Analyzing the driving forces for the Federation reveals that the Australians needed autonomy to solve the pressing needs at the time. Although some positive changes were seen, the country’s foreign policy remained under the control of the British rulers. It has been argued that the Federation led to Australia’s freedom due to the positive administrative changes seen. However, critically examining this statement from the standpoint of trade, security, racial segregation, and foreign affairs, it is evident that the contribution of the Federation to Australia’s liberation remains debatable.
The Driving Force for the Federation
Trade has always been the backbone of a nation’s economic progress. Without it, individuals and countries would remain separated from the outside world, gradually becoming poor. The colonies existed as autonomous administrative units for at least fifty millennia before the Federation. They had constructed railways with differing gauges, complicating people and commodities travel throughout the continent. In essence, the six colonies were locked away from potential resources and growth opportunities that would result from seamless trade interactions between them. Looking at the Federation from the standpoint of economic changes, the statement “federation brought liberation” proves true. Liberation, in this case, pertains to the ability to interact with other colonies, thereby being freed from the confines of self and lack.
Security is an essential element of every nation that calls for national debates and the implementation of various policies, and a significant portion of national resources. Before the Federation, the colonies had to seek individual means of protection, which was not easy. The inability to coordinate with neighboring colonies for backup made it extremely difficult to secure the people and resources within the colonies. Analyzing this point critically, it is evident that the colonies were bound by their separations, risking their people. This way, liberation was far from reach, knowing that security is so instrumental in the practice of freedom. By the 1880s, the inefficiencies of the system, rising colonial unity, and a conviction that a central government was required to cope with trade, defense, and immigration had increased public support for the Federation. Evidently, fear, national sentiment, and self-interests brought the colonies together. Eventually, the colonies could combine efforts and use their resources to ensure each person’s wellbeing.
Federation and Trade Liberation
For centuries, governments have benefitted by determining what products enter their countries and setting tariffs for revenue collection. Although the government needs revenue from such sources to undertake significant projects, tariffs limit inter-state interactions. In reference to the Australian government, tariffs brought in a lot of money for the colonial administrations, but they also limited trade and transportation between the colonies. Tariffs raised the cost of commodities and made it difficult for non-colonial manufacturers to compete with local manufacturers. Colonizers used this opportunity to strengthen their influence. Politically, such influence cripples the citizens’ power of speech, expression, and choice. From an analytical viewpoint, the colonial administration had rendered trade between the colonies challenging, restricting it among the colonialists. During that period, Australian citizens were forced to labor without enjoying the benefits of their work. Thankfully, the Federation gave the people a chance to trade freely.
There is a close link between people’s mobility and national growth. In addition to exchanging commodities, traveling equips people with new ideas that would eventually transform their worldviews. In Australia, the colonial government restricted traveling between the colonies, minimizing the chances that people would interact and find ways of fighting for their liberation. Traveling between colonies was particularly problematic due to trade prohibitions; the train linking Sydney and Melbourne was stalled at the borderline in Albury as customs officers checked passengers’ bags. This trend was unfair and inhuman as trade merchants were left stranded. Owing to the dire need for survival, trade merchants became the first supporters of the Federation. They believed that eliminating tariffs and establishing a unified market would help each colony’s economy. In the real sense, self-interest was the main driving force for the merchants’ decisions. On an analytical level, removing trade restrictions after the Federation allowed people to express their talents and showcase their beliefs of life, leading to liberation.
Federation and Racial Segregation
For millennia, racial segregation and discrimination have been significant causes of conflict in society. Notably, non-British citizens have reported being severally mistreated in British territories. Living under the British administration would mean that the people developed differential treatment towards people of a different race. Many people in the late nineteenth century opposed immigration from non-British territories. There was concern that ‘cheap’ non-white labor would compete for jobs with colonists, resulting in poorer salaries and living standards. These fears arose partly from anti-Chinese animosity that dated back to the 1850s gold rushes. They also expressed hostility toward Pacific Islanders employed in Queensland’s sugar industry.
Racial strife can be perceived as a result of a heterogeneous society at the time. It was thought that a central government would better manage immigration than the colonies. History confirms that immigration is one of the essential ways countries develop good relationships with other nations and acquire a high-skilled and diverse pool of human resources. As such, the colonies needed to change their immigration policies to fully benefit from it. After the Federation, people started relating to different races at equal levels. Although racism was not completely eliminated, the citizens’ worldviews shifted to seeing other people as humans first and then races later. From this standpoint, liberation was achieved after the Federation.
Federation and National Pride
Colonists typically spoke the same language, shared a similar culture, and began to define themselves as Australians rather than British. Sir Henry Parkes, the Premier of New South Wales, described it as “the scarlet thread of brotherhood that runs through us all.” This statement denotes the longing for unity, pride, and representation among a people separated from each other for many millennia. By the time of Federation in 1901, nearly three-quarters of the inhabitants had been born in Australia. Many individuals migrated between the territories searching for work, and sporting teams representing Australia began to emerge. This can be described as a historic era in which Australians realized that they were citizens of a greater nation than they had imagined while operating under separate territories. Soldiers from the colonies serving in the Boer War in South Africa in 1899 were described as Australians, demonstrating their national pride. In consequence, Australia and Australians gained liberation from national disintegration.
Federation and Foreign Affairs
Liberation may be believed to start when the Australian states began operating as one. However, in regard to foreign affairs, this is a frequent misperception. Australia did not become independent in its foreign affairs until much afterward and through incremental legal change. Although Australia gained nominal independence in 1901, London kept significant legislative powers and significantly influenced Australia’s foreign policy. Before the Federation, the United Kingdom had the authority to conduct foreign affairs in the name of all separate states. Agent-generals in London were in charge of an overseas government office for each colony. As a result, each state had its distinct, independent representation, which can still be seen today. If this type of administration is still evident centuries after the Federation, it may imply that the Federation did not essentially liberate Australians.
A people’s attitudes of themselves and others shape relationships and influence major decisions. Although the Federation allowed the colonies to decide their affairs, autonomy required a dramatic shift in perceptions. After the six colonies joined, the British government retained control of the Australian Commonwealth’s foreign affairs. The historic Balfour Declaration of 1926 signaled a gradual transition in London’s attitude toward its colonies. These guiding principles paved the path for the legislation required to implement such autonomy inside the dominions. The British Parliament passed the Westminster Statute in 1931, which codified this legislation, officially recognizing Australia’s independence. From this point, it is clear that complete liberation depended not on the Federation but the colonies’ views and beliefs regarding autonomy.
A nation does not attain and fully implement powers granted by the colonial administration so quickly. Historically, any nation coming from British colonialism took to structure its governance. The Westminster Declaration gave the colonies far more freedom to govern themselves, diminishing powers previously controlled by London, such as foreign affairs. However, for this statute to take effect, it had to be approved by the Australian parliament. Australia did not adopt the act until October 9th, 1942, 11 years later. As a result, Australia could only conduct its foreign policy after that. Noting that foreign affairs play a crucial role in a country’s practice of freedom, Australia cannot be termed as a liberal state merely based on the Federation. As shown here, the nation only became autonomous after the statute allowing for independent control of foreign affairs was fully passed. From this view, the Federation did not essentially lead to Australia’s liberation.
Federation and the Aboriginals
Referring to the Aboriginals’ living conditions before and after the Federation presents a constraint to the argument that the Federation brought liberalism to Australians. It would be expected that the Federation would enable the Aboriginals to regain their freedom completely and compensate for the years they lost during the colonial rule and segregated governance era. However, when the colonies finally united, Aboriginal peoples’ control over their own lives was taken away. Their personal and professional lives were closely monitored. They were unable to participate in elections for the federal government, and in any case, the law would not have been modified in their favor. Using the lenses of freedom to participate in deciding the leadership structures, the Aboriginals were in a worse position after the Federation than before, implying that liberation was not achieved.
Voting rights are among the defining elements of freedom and liberation. Tracing the history of voting privileges among the Aboriginals, it is evident that the Federation negatively shifted the Aboriginals’ voting rights. The government had granted voting privileges to all men aged 21 years and above in the 1850s, including all Aboriginal men. After the Federation, situations changed for the Aboriginals, and voting rights were severely curtailed throughout the first part of the twentieth century. In this case, the Federation allowed the new government to segregate its own people and limit their political participation, making liberation impossible as far as the Aboriginals are concerned.
A government’s duty to its people should not be based on past experiences in the hands of colonial administrators. The Commonwealth government granted Aboriginal people a voice in federal elections in 1949. Unless they were already on the electoral roll before 1901, any Aboriginal natives from Australia, Asia, the Pacific islands, or Africa were explicitly prohibited from voting. Many Aboriginal people were forced to reside in remote Christian mission outposts. They were not allowed to communicate in their own dialect or follow their religion on these stations; instead, they were required to use English and follow the Christian faith. Electoral authorities had the authority to determine who qualified as an Aboriginal native and who did not, resulting in decisions based on whether or not an aborigine person conducted themselves like a white person. This, in itself, refutes the claim that the Federation contributed to liberation in Australia.
Conclusion
The attainment of freedom and Federation does not imply the complete liberation of people in all aspects. As shown herein, the six colonies joined and formed a central government through which they advanced their agenda. However, it turns out that achieving freedom did not mean that the nation turned completely to liberation. Trade, security, and travel were some of the significant achievements denoting liberation after the Federation. Australia’s foreign policy transition history demonstrates that de jure transformation does not always translate into de facto change. In addition, the Aboriginals were subjected to family separation and forced religious affiliations, implying that liberation was not fully achieved.
Bibliography
Anderson Kym, ‘Trade Protectionism in Australia: Its Growth and Dismantling.’ (2020) 34 Journal of Economic Surveys 5, 34-7.
Aroney, Nicholas, ‘The Formation and Amendment of Federal Constitutions in a Westminster-Derived Context.’ (2018) 16 International Journal of Constitutional Law 1, 15-8.
Bulan, Nurul and Setiawan, Agus, ‘Voting Right: Government Policy on Abirigin and Community Participation in Australia.’ (2017) Bogor International Conference for Social Science (BICSS) 1, 10-17.
Cronin, Darryl, ‘Trapped by history: democracy, human rights and justice for indigenous people in Australia.’ (2017) 23 Australian Journal of Human Rights 2, 220-41.
Edo, Anthony, ‘The Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market’ (2018) 33 Journal of Economic Surveys 3, 922-48.
Farrell, Sean, ‘Irish Rebel, Imperial Reformer: Charles Gavan Duffy and Australian Federation.’ (2017) 1 Ireland in an Imperial World 69, 80-9.
Fenna, Alan, ‘The Centralization of Australian Federalism 1901–2010: Measurement and Interpretation.’ (2018) 49 Publius: The Journal of Federalism 1, 3-5.
Karageorgos, Effie, ‘War in A ‘White Man’s Country’: Australian Perceptions of Blackness on the South African Battlefield, 1899–1902.’ (2018) 15 History Australia 2, 10-6.
Lloyd, Peter, ‘The First 100 Years of Tariffs in Australia: The Colonies.’ (2020) 53 World Scientific Reference on Asia-Pacific Trade Policies 3, 316-44.
Lustick, Ian, ‘The Balfour Declaration A Century Later: Accidentally Relevant.’ (2017) 24 Middle East Policy 4, 45-7.
McCarron, Barry, ‘Make It Too Hot for Them to Stop in the Colony: The Irish Stance on the Chinese Question in Australia, 1851-1901.’ (2020) 20 The Australasian Journal of Irish Studies 1, 99–124.
Orr, Kirsten, ‘Politics and School Buildings: Constructing an Educational Infrastructure for Free Trade New South Wales, 1889–1891.’ (2017) 27 Fabrications 1, 12.
Saunders, Cheryl, ‘Australia (Commonwealth of Australia).’ (2020) The Forum of Federations Handbook of Federal Countries, 69, 70-4.
Shore, Cris, ‘The Shapeshifting Crown: Locating the State in Postcolonial New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK.’ (2022) Cambridge University Press.
Tumblin, Jesse, ‘The Quest for Security: Sovereignty, Race, and the Defense of the British Empire, 1898–1931.’ (2020) Cambridge University Press.