Deakin Law Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Deakin Law Review |
|
The Hon Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE[*]
One purpose of this, the first Deakin Lecture, is to pay tribute to Alfred Deakin and his incomparable contribution to the creation and the early life of the Australian Federation. The other more important purpose is to look back at Deakin’s vision of a future Australia a century ago and carry that vision forward to the Australia that we know today.
You might ask: why select Deakin over other prominent fathers of the Australian nation, such as Barton and Griffith? There are several answers. Deakin’s contribution to nationhood was unique. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was Australian born. Born in Melbourne, he was a political prodigy, being elected to the Victorian Parliament at the age of 22 and approved a Minister at the age of 26. He made his name as one of three Victorian delegates to the Imperial Colonial Conference in London in 1887. He was an influential member of the Constitutional Conventions in the 1890s which shaped the Australian Constitution. He played a prominent part in securing its endorsement by the peoples of the Colonies in the referenda which followed the Conventions. He was the driving force in the Australian delegation that negotiated the approval of the Constitution, subject to a minor amendment, by the British Government and its enactment by the Imperial Parliament. And he was first Attorney-General, then Prime Minister of Australia, in the early years of the Australian Federation, setting in place the building blocks of the nation.
Known as ‘Affable Alfred’, he was a prodigious reader, mainly in literature, biography and history. It was said of him that ‘He devoured whole libraries’.[1] Early in his career, he was taken up by David Syme, the proprietor of The Age newspaper, and wrote leaders and other articles for The Age . Later in his career he was the paid anonymous Australian correspondent for the London Morning Post, writing a weekly letter for that journal from 1901 to 1914, even when he was Attorney-General and later Prime Minister. Imagine a Prime Minister doing that today!
What distinguished him from his contemporaries more than anything else was his clear articulation of a vision of Australia’s future and his capacity to perceive how the future would turn out. In his celebrated second reading speech on the Judiciary Bill in March 1902 he foresaw the role which the High Court of Australia would play in the interpretation of the Constitution and the development of the federal system, a role which the Supreme Court of the United States had played up to that time in relation to the United States Constitution. His speech which continued for 3 1/4 hours – a marathon by modern standards – was acclaimed not only by political and legal colleagues but also by many others of whom the artist Tom Roberts was one.
What he said then in 1902 has not been improved upon –
our written Constitution, large and elastic as it is , is necessarily limited by the ideas and circumstances which obtained in the year 1900 ... [Amendment] is a comparatively costly and difficult task and one which will be attempted only in grave emergencies ... But the nation lives, grows and expands, the circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces.
He went on to speak of the role of the High Court of Australia as one which enabled-
the Constitution to grow and to be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation. Amendments achieve direct and sweeping changes, but the court moves by gradual, often indirect, cautious, well considered steps, that enable the past to join the future, without undue collision and strife in the present.
There was strong opposition to the creation of the High Court at this time. To some it was seemed to be an expensive luxury. But, as Deakin often said, ‘Federalism is legalism’ and a constitutional court was necessary to hold the line and preserve the balance between Commonwealth and State powers. Within three years, so great was the volume of the Court’s work that it became necessary to increase the number of High Court Justices from three to five. By 1913 the number had increased to seven, the present number.
Deakin’s prescience was not confined to the role of the High Court. He appreciated that the Senate would not fulfil its intended destiny as a States House and that its composition would be dictated by the political parties. He foresaw also that the Commonwealth would eventually dominate the Federation through the exercise of its financial powers. As he said, the Constitution left the States ‘legally free but financially bound to the chariot wheels of the central Government’.[2] By the standards of his time, he was a centralist. Yet t he was compelled in some matters to give way to State concerns.
Deakin’s foresight in these matters was a consequence of his vision of Australia’s future as a nation. He believed that, ultimately, the six separate colonial communities, so often pre-occupied with their own parochial concerns, would develop a spirit of national unity. He was, of course, correct, though the generation of that sense of national unity came at a great cost in the form of Australia’s participation in the First World War and the enormous human and emotional sacrifice that it entailed.
Deakin’s strong sense of Australian nationalism did not make him a republican. His nationalism was a rejection of colonial status. He thought of the Federation as a union of the peoples of the Australian colonies ‘under the Crown’. In his mind, Australia would remain an integral part of the British Empire. He saw strength in Imperial unity, though he sought decentralisation of Imperial decision-making, at least to the extent of wider consultation with the constituent elements of the Empire, objecting constantly to the domination and the influence of the Colonial Office. He no doubt enjoyed the comment made by another Victorian George Higinbotham, whom Deakin had admired in his early days, that the Empire was ruled by ‘a person named Rogers’, Rogers being an Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office in London. We may doubt whether Deakin would have welcomed the later transition from British Empire to British Commonwealth, because it entailed the loss of unity that went with the move from Empire to Commonwealth.
Like many, but not all, Australians Deakin was by no means an admirer of all things British. An opponent of English class divisions, he did not accept a grant of British honours and remained for a long time the only Australian Prime Minister not to become a Privy Councillor.
His conception of the British Empire, orthodox at that time, centred on Great Britain and the old self-governing white Dominions. Decentralisation and consultation did not extend to the subject races of the Empire in Africa and Asia. He was a supporter of Home Rule for Ireland, but that was as far as he was prepared to go. Not surprisingly, he had no inkling of the winds of change that were to sweep through Africa and Asia after the Second World War, signalling the end of colonialism and bringing the autonomy and independence of indigenous peoples in their train.
His Australia was ‘White Australia’. Hence, his support in 1901 for the Pacific Islanders Bill which required the repatriation of Pacific Islanders who had been working on the sugar plantations and his support for the Immigration Restriction Bill with its notorious provision for a dictation test. This provision prevailed over a proposed Labour amendment which would have excluded from the ranks of potential Australian immigrants ‘any person who is an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa or of the islands thereof’. The conflict between the supporters of the Bill and the supporters of the amendment was, however, not over the exclusion of coloured immigrants. Both sides, including Deakin himself, strongly favoured that exclusion. The dispute was over the means by which they were to be excluded. The British Government was opposed to direct exclusion because the Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, had made it plain in 1897 that it would be “most painful” to Queen Victoria to sanction a measure which would be offensive to Her Majesty’s subjects in India and Asia. So the Australian Government, Deakin included, settled for indirect exclusion.
Deakin’s biographer, Professor La Nauze, argues that Deakin’s support for the exclusion of coloured immigrants was not based on any notion of racism or racial superiority.[3] Deakin’s stated reasons were related to national unity and social and economic considerations. He believed that Australian unity depended on having a united race. He stated –
A united race means not only that its members can intermix, intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by ideas, and an aspiration towards the same ideals, of a people possessing the same general cast of character, tone of thought – the same constitutional training and traditions – a people qualified to live under this Constitution.[4]
This statement of Deakin’s position is associated with his preference for British migrants over Southern Europeans, his concern about the existence of non-assimilated minorities in the United States (which he regarded as an undesirable weakness) and his strong sentiments of Australian nationalism. Curiously enough, he considered that
the Japanese require to be excluded because of their high abilities ... It is the business qualities, the business aptitude, and the general capacity of these people that make them dangerous and the fact that while they remain an element in our population, they are incapable of being assimilated ....[5]
Deakin lived in a world in which chauvinistic nationalism was common. Although his notion of national uniformity according to a British mould is quite unacceptable in modern multi-cultural Australia, he perceived with acute clarity that a fragmentation of common assumptions and ideals has a potential to fracture national unity and to make government much more difficult. It is that very complexity of modern Australian society with its absence of shared common assumptions and ideals that makes governance much more problematic than it was in his time. This difficulty is by no means peculiar to Australia. It is a characteristic of modern societies.
There was little or no place for the indigenous aboriginal peoples of Australia in this scheme of things. They did not share the same cast of character, tone of thought, constitutional training and traditions. As is well known, s 127 of the Australian Constitution provided that –
In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution then expressly excluded ‘the aboriginal race in any State’ from the power given to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate for the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.[6] And s 4 of the Franchise Act 1902 (Cth) provided that no aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand should be entitled to have his name placed on the electoral roll unless so entitled under s 41 of the Constitution. An Australian aboriginal person had no right to vote at a Federal election unless he or she became entitled under a State law. Then, as now, national policy deferred to State sensitivities.
Deakin was a Victorian liberal. The Victorian Liberals strongly favoured tariff protection. They were supported by the Australian colonies other than New South Wales which supported free trade. Even then Melbourne was the centre of manufacturing in Australia. The existence of Australian manufacturing depended upon tariff protection. The Victorian Liberals also advocated democratic reform and state intervention to create greater opportunities through improved education, land reform and protective tariffs. They also advocated just wages and minimum levels of welfare.
Their policies were quickly implemented on the attainment of Federation by the Governments of which Deakin was a member. Education, a cause with which Deakin identified strongly in his earlier career in Victorian politics, was not then a Commonwealth responsibility. Commonwealth funding of education was a thing of the future.
In 1905, after Deakin became Prime Minister, the Government was able to establish the policy of tariff protection which was to remain a cornerstone of Australian policy for most of the 20th century. The building of an industrial base, essential to Australia’s general development and capacity to defend itself, could not be undertaken if Australian production was forced to compete with low cost products from Britain and Asia. Australia even then was a high wage country. Then, as now, free trade was supported by rural and financial interests. The existence of Britain as the major market for our rural output satisfied rural interests and reinforced our ties with Britain.
Allied to the protective tariff was an important manifestation of Australian egalitarianism, namely the protection of workers’ wages and conditions. This was to be achieved through the medium of industrial arbitration and the Arbitration Court. The Court prescribed wages and conditions of employment in the course of settling interstate industrial disputes. The system of industrial arbitration then established was unique and it came to play a dominating and restrictive part in the formation of Australian social and economic policy. As we know, its political consequences for Australia were profound. It led to a highly unionised workforce and to the exercise of very considerable power by the unions in the negotiations and determination of wages and conditions of employment. That, in turn, led to strong pressure by both employers and employees to keep in place a strong system of tariff protection.
In Deakin’s mind the various policies implemented in the early years of Federation were part of a grand strategy of nation building, which would see the emergence of a strong, self-sufficient Australia, able to stand on its feet in its dealings with the world, yet offering to its citizens freedom, equal treatment and social justice. How these various steps formed part of a grand strategy linked to the White Australia policy is made clear in an election speech Deakin made in Ballarat in 1903. Of the White Australia policy, he said it
means equal laws and opportunities for all, it means protection against the underpaid labour of other lands; it means social justice as far as we can establish it, including just trading and the payment of fair wages ... A White Australia is not a surface, but it is a reasoned policy which goes to the roots of national life, and by which the whole of our social, industrial and political organisation is governed.[7]
Deakin’s grand strategy continued to have popular support through later generations. But, as time passed, various elements in the strategy began to give way. Australia, no longer a member of the British Empire, became an independent member of the community of nations. The strong ties with Britain were weakened by a series of events. With the collapse of Singapore in 1942, Australia turned towards the United States. After the War, the migration program attracted many southern Europeans to Australia. Subsequently, Britain’s membership of what is now the European Union led to Japan replacing the United Kingdom as Australia’s major trading partner. The further expansion of the migration program to include Asian migrants ultimately sounded the death-knell of the White Australia policy. And the high cost of Australian goods and the high cost to consumers of imported goods as a result of high protective tariffs led to a reduction in tariff protection in the 1970s.
Meantime, the international movement favouring the freeing-up of world trade gathered strength through the GATT, and was more recently accelerated by the creation of the World Trade Organisation (the WTO). Australia became converted to the support of free trade and the dismantling of tariff protection. The phenomenon known as globalisation made this more or less inevitable.
Because the dynamics of globalisation exposed us to the winds of economic competition and made high tariff protection an unacceptable option, the system of industrial arbitration has been wound back and the role of the unions in that system has been reduced. The consequence is that the workforce is not as highly unionised and the power of the unions seems to have decreased, at least temporarily. This accords with the prevailing philosophy of economic rationalism according to which the labour market, in common with other markets, should be free and competitive.
In the aggregate, these developments, all of recent or fairly recent origin, have unwound the Deakin grand strategy. That is not to say that the strategy failed in its purpose. Its purpose was to build a strong nation with particular characteristics, notably a society which was free, equal and prided itself on providing social justice for its citizens. With the notable exception of the aboriginal people, the strategy broadly succeeded in achieving that purpose. That achievement was materially assisted by the outstanding artistic, musical, cultural and sporting contributions made by individual Australians.
The achievement of the purpose and the attainment of nationhood have, however, left a vacuum. New goals have not been clearly identified. Australia, like other former European colonies, has not succeeded in defining a clear role for itself since cutting itself loose from its close relationship with the United Kingdom. In Australia’s case, the problem is accentuated by our geographic position, adjacent to Asia, yet situated at the other end of the world from our cultural heritage in Europe. The attempt to generate closer links with Asia has by no means succeeded. Australia is not part of Asia and the closer relationship with Indonesia which was a central pillar of Australian foreign policy has fractured over East Timor and the breakdown of Javanese control of the archipelago. Further to the east, a climate of instability hovers over the Pacific Islands.
Australia’s geographic isolation from Europe and her cultural isolation from Asia has its economic counterpart. We are not a member of an economic bloc or group. Excluded from Europe, we are not a member of an Asia Free Trade group We are attempting to initiate a free trade dialogue with the United States but this is a venture beset with imponderables.
Our endeavours to generate closer links with Asia have not been helped by recollections of the White Australia policy and by more recent manifestations of what in essence is a similar approach by the One Nation party. It may also be, though this is by no means clear, that our identification with and our support of United States policies causes some Asian nations to view us with some degree of reserve.
Electoral support for strong action against asylum seekers arriving by boat from Asia attracts attention in Asia. It may well colour Asian perceptions of Australia’s attitude towards Asian immigration, though to what extent is hard to say. Much publicity is directed to our treatment of the illegal boat people who are Asian. But the problem of illegal boat people is not confined to Australia. As television news footage graphically shows us, it is a problem we share with Europe, America and Asia itself. We live in an era in which migrants are on the move, searching for better opportunities in their attempts to escape from violence, persecution, oppression and poverty.
The fundamental problem, ignored by Deakin’s grand strategy, was the future of the aboriginal peoples of Australia. It may well have been assumed that over time they would be assimilated in a White Australia. Certain it is that the legal fiction by which they were adjudged to have no rights in relation to the unalienated wastelands of the Crown could not be justified. Fortunately, we have seen the emergence of a strong national sentiment in favour of reconciliation with the indigenous people of Australia. Just what form it should take remains to be worked out. Above all else reconciliation calls for a generosity of spirit. A genuine expression of apology may be not the only difficulty. But we ought as a nation to confront the problem, to acknowledge without equivocation the injustices of the past and move on to a more productive dialogue.
Other aspects of globalisation, not anticipated a century ago, have not only undermined elements of the Deakin strategy but have also reinforced the cause of reconciliation. The rise of internationalism and the growth of international and transnational institutions, including the United Nations and its agencies, has been accompanied by the recognition that racial discrimination in all its forms must be eliminated. As a nation which is multi-cultural and has always depended upon immigration, Australia should be a leader in the pursuit of internationalism and non-discrimination and should not hesitate to maintain support for Asian immigration, including those who are genuine asylum seekers. That, almost certainly, is where our future lies. For that future is intimately linked to Asia and our neighbours in this part of the world.
One area in which we have contributed to the development of Asia is education. A large number of Asian students receive their tertiary education at Australian universities and other institutions. Education of Asian students is a valuable source of funding of Australian universities and, at the same time, enables us to build bridges with Asia and to develop a better understanding with Asia. Yet too often we speak of our relationship with Asia as if it were simply a trading relationship. That is a short-sighted approach which is an obstacle to better mutual understanding.
There is justifiable concern about the level of government funding, both federal and State, of, and support for, education and science in Australia. Professor Gavin Brown, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney and chair of the Group of Eight universities, has stated that ‘Government funding to universities for general operation purposes has been cut by 6 per cent in real terms since 1996’.[8] The skills level of our workforce, so necessary to attract investment, also has been a matter for concern. If we have faith in our destiny, then we must endeavour to cultivate the talents and energies of our young people. They are our greatest asset, and expenditure on science and education, provided it is undertaken responsibly, is likely to reap dividends in the future. If one thing is reasonably clear, it is that we are at the cutting edge of medical scientific and bio-technical research and astronomy. Although we are proficient across the professions and other fields of endeavour, it is in these areas of research that we are generally recognised as punching above our weight. Expenditure on science and education is something of which Deakin would have approved most strongly, though the scientific and technological revolution was in its infancy in his days.
Environmental degradation is another development which has arrived to haunt us since the Deakin era. Environmental degradation was not perceived to be a problem a century ago. The problem now takes many forms. The threat of nuclear destruction and pollution has sharpened our awareness of the fragility of the environment and of our place in it, while scientific research has alerted us to many dangers previously unidentified. Environmental protection is now a matter of global concern which calls for international co-operation and an international solution. Here again we can play a leading role.
Water irrigation, an undertaking which Deakin strongly supported, is endangering the Australian environment. At that time, it was not thought that irrigation would lead to the modern problems of salinity which afflicts so much of the lands in the Murray-Darling basin. Quite apart from the adverse consequences flowing from the use of pesticides and fertilisers, irrigation has also affected the quantity, as well as the quality, of water in the lower reaches of the Murray River in South Australia. We cannot say with certainty what Deakin’s response to these problems would be, though it would be very surprising if he did not advocate remedial measures, however difficult they may be.
Likewise, we can only guess at what Deakin would have thought of the Monarchy-Republic issue. From what we know of Deakin’s views, it seems unlikely that he would be a supporter of a Republic. There is, of course, a very considerable difficulty in asking what would be the response to a particular problem today of someone who lived at an earlier time. If we attribute to that person the views which the individual held at that time, the answer would seem to be clear. The views then held would dictate the answer. The alternative approach is to acknowledge that the individual would adjust his views in the light of relevant changes in the prevailing conditions and circumstances. So, with the decline of the British Empire and the weakening in our ties with the United Kingdom, along with our membership of the community of nations in our own right, and our changed relationship with Asia, it is possible that Deakin would see things differently now. Whatever his preference might be, he was too much of a statesman not to appreciate that the move to a Republic is ultimately inevitable. Accustomed to leadership, he might think that he had a responsibility to take the matter forward. But in the end, thinking along these lines does not travel beyond speculation and conjecture.
Deakin would surely have wished to alleviate the lot of those who have suffered most as a result of the onset of globalisation, not least those who have lost employment as a result of the decline of Australian manufacturing industry. The egalitarian spirit, the spirit of mateship, which he shared, was a dominating characteristic of old Australia. Yet it seems to be compromised by a more selfish determination on the part of some to secure material advances, despite the cost of these advances to those who are forced to bear the burdens that come with globalisation.
Whatever Deakin might wish to do, he would face the stark and unpleasant economic realities of today. One of the very significant changes that took place in the last century was the growing influence of economic policy. Economic theory has played a strong part in the rise of globalisation and the triumph of free trade over protection. The realities of free trade and free competition have sent a serious message to Australia. We are far from being self-sufficient. We have a substantial adverse trade balance and a high current account deficit. Unlike Singapore, we have a low value-adding economy. We depend very largely on imports to sustain our activities and our way of life. That dependence has resulted in an increasing burden of foreign debt and a currency that has been falling in value against major currencies in recent years. Yet we have a low national savings rate. How then are we to generate the financial resources necessary to exploit our own natural resources and at the same time undertake the remedies and take the initiatives that appear to be required to enable us to achieve our aspirations?
Given our incapacity to generate considerable savings and capital from our own resources, we tend to look to foreign investment. Except for exploitation and development of natural resources, unfortunately Australia is not a particularly attractive destination for foreign capital investment. Our market is small and very competitive. The prospective returns are therefore not enticing. Tax rates and tax deals are more readily available elsewhere. And the inducements which are sought by foreign investors are costly. They cost Government revenue and taxpayers money.
Indeed, as others have said before, although we live beyond our means, steps have not been taken to redress the balance. The consequence is that we may set at risk the living standards of future generations of Australians. We are not, of course, the only Western nation to pursue a similar course with the risk of similar consequences for future generations.[9] But we have an ageing population in which a smaller proportion of earners will be supporting a larger proportion of welfare recipients. This scenario will in itself encourage younger Australians with ability to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere, more particularly those engaged in research which requires expensive infrastructure and resources in order to enjoy substantially higher remuneration or, alternatively, to pursue career opportunities that are likely to be more challenging or exciting than those on offer in Australia.
Perhaps too much should not be made of the prospect of ‘brain drain’. It has been a feature of Australian life for a long time. It has had its counterpart in the immigration of many migrants who have had a vast impact upon Australian life. The risks of this drain, however, may be greater in the future, notably in research based activity.
The issues which face Australia today are no less – perhaps more challenging - than those Deakin confronted over a century ago. I say that the current issues are ‘perhaps more challenging’ because the Australian drive to nationhood was based either on assumptions that can no longer be made or on certainties that no longer exist. Economic and environmental reality have caught up with us.
Deakin sought to identify and address the issues as they existed in his day. He did not entirely succeed in that endeavour due to the limitations of then existing knowledge, the failure to address the aboriginal issue and the erroneous assumptions on which the notion of White Australia was based. In other respects, the issues were brought out in the open and debated. And in that debate he and his contemporaries were able to voice their aspirations in a way that captured the imagination of Australians.
Is it no longer possible to adapt to follow this example today? To identify the issues, acknowledge the difficulties, without pretending that they don’t exist or without papering them over, and to craft a blueprint for the future. Frank disclosure and open exposition may dissipate scepticism and cynicism of the political process and may even encourage our aspirations. That was the paramount quality of Deakin’s confident leadership. It was aspirational.
I conclude with the comment that open exposition may not be enough. If the democratic process is to fulfil its purpose, the political focus must move from short term electoral advantage to a long term focus and crafting an attainable vision of the future and a strategy for achieving it.
[*] Speech delivered on 10 May 2001, as part of the Alfred Deakin Lectures.
[*] Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.
[1] Walter Murdoch, Alfred Deakin – A Sketch (1923) 19.
[2] La Nauze, Alfred Deakin (1965) 359.
[3] Ibid, 278-283.
[4] Legislation restricting Coloured Immigration, CPP 1901-1902, vol ii, quoted in ibid 281.
[5] Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, vol iv, 4812.
[6] The provision was amended in 1967 by eliminating the exclusion of the aboriginal race in any State.
[7] La Nauze, above n 2, 843.
[8] Professor Gavin Brown, ‘The rising cost of aiming high’, The Australian, Higher Education, 18 April 2001, 33.
[9] See N. Ferguson and L. Kotlikoff, ‘The Degeneration of EMU’ Foreign Affairs, March/April 2000, 110 et seq.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2002/3.html