Essay: The Significance of the 1967 Referendum

This essay investigates the significance of the 1967 referendum.

A printable copy of this essay with full bibliography can be downloaded here.

---

The 1967 Referendum question on Aborigines arose in a time of growing awareness for indigenous issues both in Australia and worldwide. Debate in parliament was legalistic under the Menzies Government, whilst pro-Aboriginal pressure groups presented daily petitions to try and influence members of the house that there was a great public outcry for reform. It was not until Menzies’ retirement that the Commonwealth Parliament was convinced to include the removal of all discriminatory clauses from the constitution in the referendum. The public was easier to win over, already aware of the humanitarian issues that the Aboriginal people faced, however pressure groups still worked to achieve a resounding approval for the referendum question. There is a great amount of myth surrounding what the change to the constitution actually meant for the Aboriginal population, however governments gradually utilised the new powers granted to the Commonwealth to advance the Aboriginal people of Australia.

When the Commonwealth Constitution Act (1901) was passed, it was considered one of the most democratic in the world,[1] however two sections of the new document discriminated against the indigenous population, section 127 and section 51 (xxvi). Despite there being numerous people involved in the framing of the constitution who took a humanistic, sensitive approach to the Aboriginal population, including Alfred Deakin, the idea that the new commonwealth government should have some obligation to legislate with regard to the aborigines was not mentioned once in the conferences.[2] The passing of the 1967 referendum saw this discrepancy rectified with amendments made to both of these sections. The most major change was the removal of Section 127, and Section 51 (xxvi) was amended to have discriminatory clauses removed. Section 127 had stated that “in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.”[3] Section 51 had provided that “The Parliament shall, subject to the constitution, have power to make laws for peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to… (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. The common perception of the 1967 referendum is that it changed the position of the Aboriginal people in Australian society.[4] Although the referendum did establish a new structure of more equal law-making by including the Aboriginal people in general legislation like all other Australian citizens, it was changes to acts and political institutions that were made both before and after the referendum that did the most to alter the Aborigines’ position in society.[5] In addition to the discrimination against Australia’s indigenous population in the constitution, just three years after Federation, the Commonwealth Parliament voted that there should be universal suffrage for men and women, however not for the indigenous population in a bid for uniformity amongst the states. Voting rights for Aborigines had been strongly opposed by some members, especially those representing Queensland and Western Australian seats. [6] These states would later be in the bottom three states as a percentage of electors in favour of the 1967 referendum question[7] and at the time had the largest aboriginal population of any state, however each smaller than that of the Northern Territory.[8] There was resentment from the Northern Territory as its people were unable to vote in referenda at the time.[9] Constitutional alteration bills for a referendum on section 127 and 51 were presented to the House twice before its successful passage, once in 1964 by Labor Opposition leader Arthur Calwell, and as a private member’s bill from Liberal MHR William Wentworth in 1966.[10]

A referendum on removing all exclusions of the Aborigines in the Commonwealth Constitution was hotly debated in Parliament, with strong views of prominent parliamentarians being shown and many submissions from pressure groups. The Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement (FCAA), later the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders (FCAATSI), was established in 1958 and lobbied the states for the removal of restrictive laws for the Aborigines.[11] In 1961 the Minister for Territories, Paul Hasluck, persuaded all mainland states to work toward the assimilation of the Aboriginal people into Australian culture so as to “[enjoy] the same rights and privileges, …the same responsibilities, …the same customs and… the same beliefs and loyalties as other Australians.”[12] This achieved bipartisan support in the Commonwealth Parliament,[13] however was rejected by the FCAA, which saw the potential of Aboriginal contribution to Australian society and argued instead for “integration”. A year later the FCAA began its fight for constitutional amendment. The FCAA was to become a significant influence on the Federal parliament, and achieved this through its awareness that it needed to prove to parliamentarians that there was significant public support for the referendum. The national campaign conducted by the FCAA included a petition ‘towards equal citizenship for Aborigines”, which argued that sections 127 and 51 “in effect give support to other laws and regulations which deprive Aborigines of equal wages and employment opportunities”.[14] The petition, which argued that “the Commonwealth constitution discriminated against the Aboriginal people in two sections”, was signed by more than 100,000 Australians in one year, with Australia’s population at the time being just over ten million people (excluding the indigenous population).[15] Petitions from the FCAA were strategically presented to parliament to bring the issue of constitutional change to the forefront of federal politics. Petitions were presented to parliament daily over a seven-week sitting period, making the debate a part of daily proceedings as it became ‘similar to the opening prayer’.[16] The petitions were successful and in 1966 cabinet agreed to hold a referendum to repeal section 127.[17] Prime Minister Robert Menzies was a high profile opponent to the constitutional change, and it was under his coalition government that the constitutional alteration bills of Calwell and Wentworth were defeated. Menzies opposed the proposed amendment to section 51 (xxvi) for mainly conservative reasons, arguing that the words of the forefathers who wrote the document should not be altered. Menzies was particularly vocal in his rejection of the proposed alteration to section 51 (xxvi), saying during a debate on the repeal of section 127 that if the clause “other than the aboriginal race in any state” was removed, that it would allow a future parliament to establish a “separate body of industrial, social, criminal and other laws relating exclusively to Aborigines.” Menzies in turn argued that “the words are a protection against discrimination by the Commonwealth Parliament in respect of Aborigines”, adding that “there can be in relation to them no valid laws which would treat them as people outside the normal scope of the law.”[18] Menzies accepted the removal of section 127, in fact tabling a constitutional amendment bill to remove it[19] saying that it was out-dated,[20] however not the amendment to section 51.[21]

The inclusion of section 51 (xxvi) in the referendum was not achieved until after Prime Minister Menzies retired from parliament and Harold Holt took control of the governing Coalition. The amendment to section 51 (xxvi) as well as the repeal of section 127 had been part of the Labor party’s policy since 1959.[22] Holt agreed to include section 51 (xxiv) in the proposed referendum in 1967. The year before Barrie Pittock and Lorna Lippmann had started a second petition, this one argued that “specific provision should be made in the constitution for the advancement of the Aboriginal people.” This petition, although loosely worded, called for the amendment to section 51 as it called for the commonwealth to establish laws to assist the Aboriginal people. This was in line with other words already established in the constitution, which Labor Parliamentarian Gordon Bryant pointed out during the debate allowed the Commonwealth Parliament to pass legislation peculiar to other groups in the community, such as migrants or pensioners, but could not give the same benefit to Aborigines.[23] A “silent vigil” conducted in 1952 and consisting of Aboriginal people from New South Wales lobbied the government to “give us equality in all States: include section 51 in the referendum.”[24] The call for change to section 51 was accepted by the Holt government and the referendum bill was passed through Parliament with almost bipartisan support.[25] No party presented a “no” argument against the referendum,[26] however the lack of support from both the Holt and Menzies governments at various stages shows that support for the referendum was not entirely bipartisan.[27] Although a key part of other discussions in regard to Aboriginal rights, land rights were not widely discussed in the debate on the referendum, with the social and humanitarian aspects of the legislation being the focus of the debate.[28]

The general public had been exposed to shocking news footage of desert-dwelling Aboriginal people suffering from starvation and illness in 1957, an image that brought to the attention of all who saw it the need for a change in the way in which Aboriginal people are treated by Australian governments. The footage, shown by the Council for Aboriginal Rights, was utilised by the Victorian Aborigines Advancement League, which took hold of the horror felt by the public after seeing the images. The League circulated a leaflet that year, which used images from the film with the title “WE WANT TO STOP THIS:… HELP US TO HELP THEM!” and a caption to one of the images reading “Flies! But too weak to bother.”[29] One journalist commented upon seeing the film that it was “one thing to read about a tragedy – it is another matter to see it.” The pictorial and cinematic campaign had had a profound effect on the electorate and gained support for constitutional change.[30] Another early campaign which drove for public support for the change was that of Aboriginal activist Charles Perkins. Perkins led a “Freedom Ride” through country New South Wales in 1965 to raise awareness of discrimination against the Aboriginal people in local laws.[31]

The 1967 referendum question on the revision of section 51 (xxvi) and the repeal of section 127 was only the fifth referendum to be approved by the Australian people at the time and, with 90.77 per cent of voters in support, was and remains the single most supported referendum question in Australian history.[32] The alteration to both discriminatory sections had been supported by the Labor party since 1959, however support from the coalition remained conservative on the issue until Holt’s assent to the Prime Ministership. Menzies’ complex legal argument, where he argued that the constitution in fact allowed for better treatment of Aborigines, was seen as archaic and no longer represented the views of the population.[33] The clause “other than the aboriginal race in any state” in Section 51 (xxvi) was seen as discriminatory by the public after years of activism working toward the referendum.[34] Since the shock of the 1957 footage, Australia underwent what Jessie Street of the London Anti-Slavery Society described as a “psychological movement” in which reforms might be successful.[35] The FCAATSI, in trying to convince the maximum possible voters that constitutional change was needed so as to make a result in favour of the question, attempted to associate a “yes” vote for the referendum question with Australianness,[36] and with fairness and justice.[37] Political scientist Charles Rowley noted that the 1967 referendum showed that Australians were seeking direction to an ideal Australia, as evidenced by slogans of the “Yes” campaign including “Towards an Australia Free and Equal: Vote Yes.”[38] The referendum campaign occurred during a greater international movement of decolonisation, where numerous colonies in Africa, Asia and Central and South America and the defeat of the referendum would have damaged Australia’s international standing and reputation around the world.[39] The Vote Yes campaign utilised this international pressure, clearly shown in a campaign song sung to the tune off Waltzing Matilda which went: “Vote Yes, Australia, Vote Yes, Australia, The eyes of the world are upon us today” and the campaign directors’ assertion that “a “no” vote… will brand this country racist and… in the same category as South Africa.”[40] Similar international pressure would later prompt Paul Keating to make his “Redfern Address” in response to the international Year of Indigenous People. The American Black Power movement would also have an effect on Australian Aboriginal Rights campaigns in the 1960s and 70s.[41] Despite there being no political “no” case at the time of the referendum, there was some public opposition to the alteration to section 51 (xxvi). Arguments included that a potential “Yes vote would allow a future centralised Commonwealth Government to pass legislation discriminating against Aborigines on racial grounds”, and that “the Aborigines who link us with the pre-historic past have remained free in their nomadic state”, with the proposed amendment to Section 51 “[requiring] that [the Aborigines] be counted, …put on an electoral role, be fined if they don't vote, submit an income tax return and generally come under all the controls that go with civilised progress.”[42] The latter of these arguments also motioned against the removal of Section 127. There were other concerns in that the states were more locally equipped to deal with Aboriginal affairs than the often remote Federal Parliament, and that the referendum was taking away more of the states’ rights.[43] The reason for Section 127’s provision in the Constitution is considered to be one of two possibilities – amongst others, including Labor MP Kim Beazley Sr,[44] Menzies acknowledged the difficulty in counting the Aboriginal people which became less of an issue as technology improved.[45] The other possible reason was that Aborigines were seen as a “dying race” with no significant future. Ironically, poor estimated counts of the Aboriginal population had estimated the “dying race’s” numbers at much lower than they probably were.[46]

The effects of the 1967 referendum are surrounded by myth. Although the event did change the mentality of the general public, the actual immediate achievements were few.[47] Many other acts that are associated with the referendum were actually not the direct result of the referendum or were passed prior to the referendum coming in to action. Guaranteed voting rights for Aborigines were established prior to the referendum, and other important steps like the granting of award wages occurred the year after the referendum.[48] There was some disappointment from activists that there had been little action from the Commonwealth Parliament in legislating for Aborigines “on education, housing, wages, trade training and land grants.”[49] The referendum had however made a pathway for several other developments.[50] Charlie Perkins lobbied Harod Holt to establish a federal Aboriginal Affairs Bureau.[51] Holt set up an Office of Aboriginal Affairs in his department and appointed Wentworth as Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, and also appointed a Commonwealth Council for Aboriginal Affairs, however no department was established.[52] After Holt, Prime Minister Gorton added no more to Holt’s work, stating that “I believe that the Minister and the Council, in their relations with the States, should seek to… allocate funds from the Commonwealth to the State for Aboriginal advancement,… to gather information regarding Aboriginal matters… [and] assist the States in coordination of their policy.” This approach was little different to the system that was in place prior to the referendum.[53] Prime Minister William McMahon did not see a distinction between the issues of white and black Australia, stating that he “couldn't see there was any problem about Aborigines that was different from unemployed or poor white people.” McMahon did however make a general-purpose lease for Aborigines and their land, which required that Aborigines “make reasonable economic and social use of the land” and excluded all mineral and forest rights.[54] Frustration at the land rights record of the McMahon Government led the establishment of the “Aboriginal tent embassy”, which remained in place until Gough Whitlam was elected Prime Minster in 1972.[55] Whitlam instated a royal commissioner to investigate how land could be granted to the Aborigines in the Northern Territory,[56] and appointed a minister to a new full Department of Aboriginal Affairs.[57] Malcolm Fraser strongly opposed racism and upheld the reforms of the Whitlam Government whilst also passing the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) which gave Aborigines title to Northern Territory reserves.[58] Further attempts at reconciliation were made under the Hawke/Keating Government, symbolised by Keating’s “Redfern Address” on the 10th of December 1992, where he all but apologised for the mistreatment of Australia’s indigenous peoples.[59] The Howard Government was seen as a step backwards in its approach to Aboriginal issues. When calls for reconciliation and an apology arose, Howard argued that “Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies over which they had no control.”[60] Howard also removed the full-time position of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, undoing Whitlam’s work from 1972.[61] The Commonwealth’s control over Aboriginal issues had seen vast ideological changes in the way in which Aborigines were addressed in legislation.

Although the immediate effects of the change to the constitution were few, the long-term use of the new powers by the commonwealth worked to advance the Aboriginal people, and the referendum was symbolic of a changed mind-set amongst the Australian people. Although challenges were faced with the referendum, such as the inclusion of section 51 (xxvi) and the inaction of consecutive conservative governments after the passing of the referendum, the change to the constitution has benefited the Aboriginal people.

---

Footnotes: [1] John Hirst, The Sentimental Nation (South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2000) page 288. [2] Dr John Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum, Background Paper 11 1996-1997 prepared for the Department of the Parliamentary Library, c2007, online text. [3] The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Printer, Canberra, 1901. [4] Deborah Gare and David Ritter, Making Australian History: Perspectives on the Past Since 1788 (Thomson: Melbourne, 2008), Page 524. [5] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 524. [6] Hirst, The Sentimental Nation, page 288. [7] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [8] C.D. Rowley, The Destruction of Aboriginal Society, (Canberra : Australian National University Press, 1970), Page 384. [9] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [10] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 527. [11] Ibid, Page 525. [12] ibid, Page 526. [13] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [14] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 526. [15] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Historical Population Statistics 2008, Cat. no. 3105.0.65.001, Canberra, 2008, AusStats http://www.abs.gov.au. [16] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 526. [17] Ibid, Page 527. [18] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 November 1965, pp. 2638-2659. [19] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [20] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 November 1965, pp. 2638-2659. [21] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [22] Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines (Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2003), Page 171. [23] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [24] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 172. [25] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 527. [26] Ibid, Page 527. [27] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [28] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, 528. [29] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 151. [30] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 150. [31] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 528. [32] Ibid, pp525-533. [33] Ibid, Page 527. [34] Ibid, Page 527. [35] Ibid, Page 525. [36] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 175. [37] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 527. [38] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 176. [39] Ibid, Page 176. [40] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 176. [41] Ibid, Page 321. [42] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [43] Ibid. [44] Ibid. [45] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 November 1965, Page 2638. [46] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [47] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 524. [48] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [49] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 528. [50] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [51] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 528. [52] Gardiner-Garden, The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum. [53] Ibid. [54] Ibid. [55] Rights Bain Attwood, Rights for Aborigines, Page 347. [56] Ibid, Page 346. [57] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 531. [58] Ibid, Page 546. [59] Ibid, pp510-511. [60] Gare and Ritter, Making Australian History, Page 582. [61] Mark McKenna, “A Reconciled Republic?” in This Country (Sydney : UNSW Press, 2004), Page 14.

---

A printable copy of this essay with full bibliography can be downloaded here.

Get more Australian history delivered straight to your inbox – subscribe to the OCSN mailing list today!

Essay: An independent Australia at the time of Federation?

This essay explores the question of why the idea of an independent Australia largely died out as the Federation Movement gathered pace.

A printable copy of this essay with full bibliography can be downloaded here.

---

The Australian federation movement, which started to gather pace in the 1880s, shared many of the agitations and much of the momentum with its alternative, the pro-independence republican movement. Both movements rose to national discussion around the same time. Both federalism and independence in the latter decades of the 1800s found support bases in different groups who needed a union of the colonies to better function in the Asia-Pacific. Whilst independence gained some strong support in the 1880s, many of its potential supporters could find what they sought from independence in federation. The desire for independence in the 1880s drove the republican movement to centre stage, however as the need for a union of the states became more and more important with regional, economic and racial fears heightening, pragmatism led to a growth of support for federation. Indeed, much of the decreased talk of independence from the time leading up to federation was because federation could provide the convenient local central administrative body that would provide the economic and political institutions that independence did, with the added clout of the British Empire in trade and defence. The attachment to Britain was also important in the demise of independence sentiment, as White Australians identified themselves predominantly as British, although somewhat detached from their homeland.

Federation and independence both appealed to the same ideals in the Australian colonial mind-set. This common interest meant that as significant public figures, including the then-longest serving member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Henry Parkes,[1] turned to support the federation movement, bringing with him public support for the movement. Parkes’ stance helped draw the Australian public to support federation rather than the alternative of outright independence from Britain. The draw away from republican and independent sentiments toward greater support for federation can be seen through the need for economic stability during the 1880s. Prior to the 1880s the republican movement had been a small movement, unable to gain major public support. However, falling wool prices, drought and the unpopular demands of the Australian Workers Union brought republicanism out from the fringes of Australian society.[2] It came to be considered by the Bulletin that to be Australian and to be republican were one and the same, however this was a misconception. The demands of the new supporters of federation were in fact attracted more toward the idea of a union of the colonies, which would allow for more control over their assets[3] under a local, Australian central government. This goal of local central government was common to both the supporters of independence through a republic and to the supporters of federation. Republicanism also gained support from “radicals”, a term which covers those who believed in broader social reform or rejected the status quo.[4] Once again the demands of these groups could be at least in part satisfied by what was offered in federation. From the United Kingdom too there had been calls for a central administrative body to be established in Australia, one which could take over much of the administrative work from the “less competent authority of the British parliament.”[5] There was a British Government proposition put forward to only allow Victoria to split from New South Wales if the colonies agreed to a central administrative body. This early attempt to force a union, the brain-child of British Secretary of State for Colonies Henry George, the third Earl Grey, was to attempt to improve economic relations between the colonies.[6] Parkes was initially a supporter of the republican movement,[7] however he moved to being a supporter of federation, even earning himself the name of the “father of federation”.[8] According to another republican of the time Daniel Deniehy, Parkes had too much ‘“Englishmanism” about him’,[9] which led Parkes and his followers to support the federation movement. This ‘Englishmanism’, although appearing foreign from a modern standpoint, was the social norm prior to and beyond the time of federation, when Australians would become the “Britons of the south.”[10] It is this loyalty to Britain and what Britain represented in trade and raw power that gave strong support to the federation movement rather than the independence movements.[11]

The nationalism that was promoted by Edmund Barton and Alfred Deakin in the 1890s was to promote the feeling that “the nation is coming”,[12] this nation being a British outpost in the Asia-Pacific – a sentiment that was supportive of the federation movement to a greater extent than the independence movement. Due to the common country of origin, it was noted that the White Australian colonies shared a single heritage, language and culture[13] - a trait which leant itself to unification. The Australian colonies were divided over basic political ideologies which nearly saw some colonies not join the federation. The most prevalent of these standoffs was between free trade New South Wales and protectionist Victoria. However, despite this disagreement it is important to note that the colonies all shared the same Queen. Alfred Deakin, the man who would eventually become Australia’s second Prime Minister, said at the 1890 Australasian Federation Conference that ‘in this country, we are separated only by imaginary lines ... we are a people one in blood, race, religion and aspiration’.[14] Just two years before Parkes had delivered what became known as the ‘Tenterfield Address’, in which he called on the colonies to 'unite and create a great national government for all Australia'.[15] Much earlier in 1867, Parkes had delivered a similar speech in which he argued that ‘the time has arrived when these colonies should be united by some federal bond of connection.’[16] These speeches would help drive the federation movement, and what both Deakin and Parkes before him spoke of provided a similar result to independence but with a greater tie to the homeland. In light of this during the 1800s republican John Dunmore Lang along with other “radicals” founded The Australian League, which sought freedom and independence for the Australian colonies,[17] and reformist William Charles Wentworth established The Australian Patriotic Association, which pushed for a union of the colonies.[18] These organisations were founded and followed by nationalists,[19] however this nationalism was not for an Australia separate from Britain. The Australian Natives Association (ANA) is a particularly good example of a belief of being Australian but British. The ANA was established in 1871 and in just over a decade limited its membership to solely those Australians who were born in Australia.[20] The ANA quickly became a large organisation[21] and redefined the word “national”, promoting Australian literature, history, the celebration of “Australia Day” to mark the arrival of the British in Australia, and the progression of Australia from the “old world”.[22] This however did not mean that the organisation did not support the Empire. The organisation was instead promoting a respectable place in the Empire for Australia.[23] This shows the common definition of Australians at the time to be British, a part of the British Empire and “more British than the British.” As a result of this definition of nationalism, it can be seen that the federation movement drew strong support from Australians because of its attachment to the British Empire, unlike the proposition of independence. Further evidence can be seen in the celebrations of federation, which had a particularly great ceremony for the swearing in of the first Governor-General, the Queen’s representative in Australia.[24] Regional fears in the psyche of nationalistic Australians during the discussions on an Australian federation meant that there was an even further decline in support for independence.

Pressures on the economy and security of Australia in the decades leading up to federation also drew support away from independence. The military support of an expansive Empire during aggressive territorial acquisitions in the Asia-Pacific in the 1880s and 1890s by rival countries, and the sheer amount of trade with the mother country saw federation being heralded as the best way forward, and independence a danger to Australia. The German attempts to control New Guinea and the French in the New Hebrides accelerated the actions of the colonial governments to unite with a stronger political body under the protection of Britain.[25] Queensland even went so far as to attempt to annex New Guinea before Germany, a move which was condemned and reversed by the British parliament.[26] The push for federation as a method of dealing with issues of inter-colonial importance was accentuated by this concern of isolation, as too was it driven by economic concerns. Earl Grey attempted, during the separation of Victoria from New South Wales, to force on to the colonies a form of central government as a way to combat the already numerous customs duties that had been established by the colonies. Grey’s concerns were that the competing colonies would impede economic development.[27] Economic rivalries had been so great between the colonies in fact that customs houses were established at both ends of the Murray River bridge which, although shared the Queen’s “HM Customs” name, were in place to levy customs duties on the goods of the other colony.[28] There were even some economic fears at the time which delayed federation, with New South Wales fearing, first in the 1880s during the gold rush that Victoria would dominate the commonwealth, and then in the 1890s fearing that the depression in Victoria would bring down the economy of the rest of Australia.[29] Britain was Australia’s largest trading partner, with exports from Australia to Britain in the four years leading up to Federation accounting for 57 per cent of Australia’s exports, and imports from Britain accounting for 63 per cent of total imports.[30] The economy was a great catalyst for the federation movement. The depression of the late 19^th century gave cause for the republican, independence pressures to be dropped for the far more practical, basic political action of federation.[31]

The ultimate success of the federation movement was due to the nationalism aroused by such leaders as Deakin and Parkes. This sense of nationalism, not toward to an independent Australia but to a strong Australia as part of the British Empire, was integral as the close of the 20th century drew nearer. The military strength of the Empire could defend Australia from the potential threat of Germany and France in the surrounding islands of the Asia-Pacific. Through federation, the Empire could also continue to be a strong trading partner, willing to buy Australian materials and sell to Australia, and through this was able to support the Australian economy out of the late-1800s economic slump. The movement for independence was slowly side-lined back to being a fringe movement, as it had been prior to its somewhat mainstream uptake in the 1880s, by the sudden uptake of federation as a move of greater importance for all the Australian colonies. The independence movement had its support stripped down by the vastly similar and more nationalistic implications of federation. Federation also gained pace through its support from prominent colonial politicians, including Parkes and Deakin, whose speeches and the roles played by them in the federation campaign were important in directing nationalist sentiments toward the cause for federation.

---

Footnotes:
[1] AW Martin, “Parkes and the 1890 Conference,” in Papers on Parliament #9 (Canberra: Department of the Senate, 1990), page 3. [2] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), page 6. [3] Ibid, page 6. [4] Bruce Mansfield, ‘The Background to Radical Republicism in New South Wales in the Eighteen Eighties’, Historical Studies, vol 5, no 20, May 1953, 338-348 [5] Radio National, ‘The Commonwealth, Democracy and Nation, Program 2’ [6] John Hirst, The Sentimental Nation (South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2000) pages 45 to 46. [7] Australian Dictionary of Biography Online Edition, “Parkes, Sir Henry (1815 - 1896),” Australian National University, Canberra, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A050455b.htm, (accessed September 11, 2010). [8] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), page 11. [9] Australian Dictionary of Biography Online Edition, “Parkes, Sir Henry (1815 - 1896),” Australian National University, Canberra, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A050455b.htm, (accessed September 11, 2010). [10] P. Spearritt and D.Walker, AUS1010: ‘Out of Empire’ Semester One 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), page 9 [11] Radio National, ‘The Republican Idea, Democracy and Nation, Program 1’ [12] Radio National, ‘The Commonwealth, Democracy and Nation, Program 2’ [13] ibid [14] Australian Government Information Management Office “Federation,” Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/federation/ (accessed September 11, 2010). [15] ibid [16] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), page 11 [17] The People who made Australia Great, 1st ed. (Sydney: Collins Publishers Australia, 1988), page 146 [18] Ibid, page 279 [19] Ibid, page 279 [20] Radio National, ‘The Commonwealth, Democracy and Nation, Program 2’ [21] Hirst, The Sentimental Nation, page 36 [22] ibid, page 39 [23] Hirst, The Sentimental Nation, page 40 [24] Radio National, ‘Framing the Constitution, Democracy and Nation, Program 3’ [25] Radio National, ‘The Commonwealth, Democracy and Nation, Program 2’ [26] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), page 11 [27] Hirst, The Sentimental Nation, page 46 [28] ibid, page 45 [29] Radio National, ‘The Commonwealth, Democracy and Nation, Program 2’ [30] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), page 35 [31] Radio National, ‘The Republican Idea, Democracy and Nation, Program 1’

---

A printable copy of this essay with full bibliography can be downloaded here.

Get more Australian history delivered straight to your inbox – subscribe to the OCSN mailing list today!

Review: A critical eye on Tom Keneally’s ‘Our Republic’

This essay examines the chapter ‘The Golden Lands of Australia’ from Tom Keneally’s book Our Republic. The review critically explores the factors that may have influenced Keneally’s presentation of information in the text, with a particular focus on his Irish heritage.

A properly formatted printable version of the essay with a full bibliography can be downloaded by clicking here.

---

In the chapter ‘The Golden Lands of Australia’ from his text Our Republic, former Chair of the Australian Republic Movement and author Thomas Keneally presents a moderately convincing case that there has always been a strong current of republicanism in Australia. Keneally explores the background of significant developments in Australian republican history in great detail; however his own republican beliefs are prevalent. The chapter only shows the republican side of the debate, which is further restricted to a focus on Irish political rebels from early in the chapter. Keneally briefly shows how political satisfaction produced a decline in republicanism after federation.

Throughout the chapter, Keneally uses examples of the intuition and motivation of Australian republicans to uphold his stance that there was always a strong republican minority in Australia. These people, who held what Keneally describes as “the other Australian sentiment”, are depicted in this chapter as a prevalent political force in 1800s Australia. He depicts the Irish in particular as respectable, “gentlemen and peasant” rebels with a dream of establishing their own republic. Keneally argues that, although their passions were for another country, their republican sentiment was implanted in the Australian psyche from the start of colonisation. Keneally compares the Irish rebels in Australia to the revolutionary forces of the American and French civil wars. Keneally also shows the influence of the fundamentally British class system on the republican debate. He does this through showing William Charles Wentworth’s move away from his own form of republican-based independence, dubbed ‘Bunyip aristocracy’, as it emphasised Australia’s convict origins. Wentworth was the illegitimate son of a convict,[1] a part of his past that he was keen to forget and which is shown by Keneally as the motivation for his changed stance. This is a simplification of Wentworth’s change, as factors such as land ownership and political success also played a part.[2] Keneally’s incorporation of the class system in his argument is backed by historian Professor Geoffrey Bolton, who adds that republicanism gained a working-class foothold amongst unionists, disillusioned by the collapse of wool prices.[3] Keneally further supports this class argument through the thoughts of republicans John Dunmore Lang and Daniel Deniehy, which he suggests were “influenced not by dreams of Imperial pomp”. He also comments on Lang presenting lectures opposing the “British caste system”. The republican sentiments outlined also include potential transportation of more criminals to Australia, the dependency of the Australian colonies on a “far-off country,” Lang’s claim that the only way Australia will be forced into war “for a century to come, lies in our connection with Great Britain”, the “new Australian identity”, which arose in the 1850s[4], the need for an “Australian court” to replace the British Privy Council, and a fundamental desire for freedom.

Keneally shows the post-federation decline in republican sentiment to be the result of a ‘primitive voice’ and a ‘satisfied… nationalist feeling’. Keneally describes a change in ‘virtually all Australian thinking’ after federation, where ‘even the most radical thinking, favoured the Monarchy.’ Keneally however fails to highlight the concerns of supporters of republicanism in the 1880s, when the debate became more prevalent in Australian society. Professor Bolton argues that market instability, poor wool prices, and the demands of the Australian Workers Union,[5] drove support for unification of the colonies – a key goal of both the federation and republican drives of the late 1800s. The federation of the colonies ultimately provided this political security, equality and a central court. Keneally does mention that labour leader George Black said he had been ‘side tracked temporarily’ by republicanism, after its cause did not provide for greater socialism in Australia, which is only a fragment of Black’s argument. Keneally discusses the idea that ‘loyalism was dogma’ in the new federation, with republicans being punished for expressing their views in the new parliament, including several members of federal and state parliaments who were expelled for criticising the Empire. Keneally claims that republicanism has been ‘corrupted’ from history, citing the posthumous editing of the writings of Deniehy ‘to do away with Republican references.’

Keneally’s Irish background[6] is clear throughout his text. His views on a republic are made exceedingly clear through his position as Chair of the Australian Republic Movement. Keneally presents a considerably narrow argument, with much of the evidence and quotes in the chapter coming from the Irish republican side of the debate. There is no discussion of significant loyalists or loyalist actions in the chapter, beyond the description of a meeting overrun by republicans. In the opening paragraphs of the chapter, Keneally speaks of “gentlemen and peasant Irish rebels” as a predominant force in Australian republicanism. Although many Irish were involved in the republican movement, their numbers may have been exaggerated by Keneally and other Irish historians.[7] Professor Geoffrey Bolton directly opposes Keneally, claiming that the Irish influence has been exaggerated by him and suggesting that the Irish were actually seeking to be “included” by the 1880s.[8] Bolton instead suggests that the gold rushes may have given strength to the republican movement. Keneally comments little on post-federation Irish sentiments. In the section of the chapter on post-federation sentiment, Keneally only touches briefly on Irish Republicanism; a changed angle from his arguments regarding pre-federation republicanism. Keneally’s Irish-centric history may find its roots in his education. In an interview Keneally spoke of his education at an Irish Catholic school, where he recalls being given “a particularly Irish version of Australian history”.[9] When interviewed, Keneally has described early Australian convicts as “my Irish prisoners”. Keneally writes extensively about, and with particular affection for, Irishman John Dunmore Lang, occasionally dropping to a more informal tone when speaking of him and expressing his personal opinion of him. Keneally states that he felt “a lot of fraternity with John Dunmore Lang”. Keneally’s view of Lang is clearly biased. Where he shows Lang to have created the government model used since federation, other authors have described Lang as a “veteran trouble-maker”.[10] A further effect of his Irish bias is that Keneally did not acknowledge other groups that became known for republicanism, such as atheists[11] and other “radicals”.[12] Keneally’s strong republicanism is also clear. He does not detail why Henry Parkes became a monarchist, despite Parkes being a significant enough figure to become known as the ‘Grand Old Man of New South Wales’,[13] and this exclusion denies the reader a chance to see Parkes’ view. Keneally quotes the words of Deniehy regarding Parkes’ defection – ‘There is too much Englishman-ism about him’ yet does not present any reasons for Parkes’ change. This quotation is actually incorrect; Deniehy’s actual words were ‘too much, not of the Englishman in him, but of “Englishmanism” about him’.[14] This alteration changes the meaning, leading the reader of Keneally’s text to associate Parkes with the Monarchists, when Parkes was seeking to promote democracy,[15] be it republican or not. Bias for the republican side is also shown through soft words used whilst describing key points of the republican cause, such as the “birth” of The Republican, whilst loyalists are described as having words “falling from [their] mouths”.

Throughout the chapter, Keneally clearly displays the significant actions of the republican movement in Australia. Through thoroughly conveying the reasons for an Australian republic and looking in detail at some republican leaders the author gives a strong case for there always being a strong current of republicanism in Australia. Keneally’s argument is however weakened considerably as he does not mention the nationalists’ viewpoints and shows a significant favouritism for the republican movement. Keneally does not present a strong reason for the decline in republican sentiment after federation. The emphasis on Irish republicanism in the text as a result of his education somewhat discredits his case. Keneally does provide a useful insight into Irish republicanism; however his text does not represent republicanism as a whole or the wider republic debate.

---

Footnotes

[1] The People who made Australia Great, 1st ed. (Sydney: Collins Publishers Australia, 1988), page 277. [2] ibid, page 279 [3] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), 6. [4] Radio National, ‘The Republican Idea, Democracy and Nation, Program 1’ [5] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), 6. [6] Robin Hughes, ‘Thomas Keneally – Interview Transcript’, Australian Biography, created 9 September 2002, accessed 7 August 2010, http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/keneally/interview1.html [7] Bob Birrell, Federation: The Secret Story, Duffy and Snellgrove, Sydney, 2001, 136 [8] Radio National, ‘The Republican Idea, Democracy and Nation, Program 1’ [9] Hughes, http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/keneally/interview1.html [10] P. Spearritt, D. Walker and G. Bolton, AUS1020: ‘Democracy and Nation’ Semester Two 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), 2. [11] Ibid, page 5. [12] Bruce Mansfield, ‘The Background to Radical Republicism in New South Wales in the Eighteen Eighties’, Historical Studies, vol 5, no 20, May 1953, 338-348 [13] The People who made Australia Great, Page 273 [14] Australian Dictionary of Biography Online Edition, “Parkes, Sir Henry (1815 - 1896),” Australian National University, Canberra, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A050455b.htm, (accessed August 11, 2010). [15] The People who made Australia Great, Page 174

For a full bibliography and a printable version of this essay please click here.

This essay is copyright © William Kulich 2010.

---

Get in-depth reviews delivered straight to your inbox – subscribe to the OCSN mailing list today!

Biography: Daniel Mannix and the British Influence on Australia

This essay is intended to explore the influence of the British Empire on the thoughts and actions of former Melbourne Catholic Archbishop Dr. Daniel Mannix. A properly formatted printable version of the essay with a full bibliography can be downloaded by clicking here.

---

Daniel Mannix, Melbourne’s Catholic Archbishop from 1917 until his death in 1963 had a significant impact on, and acted passionately in response to the British influence in Australia. In his life which spanned just four months short of a century, Mannix was involved in areas that the church had traditionally avoided, speaking on politics and popular cultural issues. His anti-conscription, Irish nationalist beliefs represented the opposite of the Australian Government’s pro-Britain message and led Mannix to be Prime Minister Billy Hughes’ main opposition in the conscription debate during the First World War. Unpopular in some areas of society due to his pro-Irish and anti-Empire sentiments which were inspired by growing up in Ireland,[1] Mannix had a vision of Australia free of the shackles of the Empire. Mannix’s rise to become a significant public figure is one which changed Australia in many ways, especially in cutting a clear path for the young nation to move away from the influence of Britain.

Daniel Mannix was born County Cork, Ireland, in 1864. In Ireland he was educated at and later became president of Maynooth Catholic College. Mannix was a senator of the Royal University of Ireland, where he was awarded an honorary doctorate of laws.[2] He migrated to Australia in 1913 to become the coadjutor to Melbourne’s Archbishop of the time T J Carr, but retained his Irish nationalism which helped define his anti-British stance. Mannix was heavily involved in politics,[3] showing a great interest in many public issues in Australia ranging from conscription and Australia’s position in the Empire during World War One, to workers’ rights, the White Australia Policy, the economy and communism later in the century[4].

Mannix became a significant figure in the politics of Australia whilst seeking to achieve what he saw as a better Australia for the Australian people. An example of Mannix’s extensive political interests in areas not in church control, and the extent of his patriotism for Australia, arises from the Great Depression of the 1930s. Mannix used the Great Depression as a platform from which to advocate the need for greater social change to, he argued, avoid “much trouble and perhaps revolution” in Australia.[5] During that decade Mannix also stood with Prime Minister Menzies to condemn war, describing himself as a pacifist “in the real sense.”[6] He was also strongly against what he called “trade wars”, which was inclusive of both the First and Second World Wars.[7] Mannix frequently questioned Australia’s involvement in these wars, implying that they were the wars of the British and that Australia should not follow its lead. Through much of his life Mannix was toward the left of politics, which was unusual for a bishop of the time,[8] however he moved slightly away from this political field later in his life, joining with the western world’s abhorrence of communism whilst retaining his anti-Empire position.[9] Mannix’s interest in politics, coupled with his belief that catholic organisations should be free to function without the intervention of state bishops whilst driving his own movement, made a case for people to claim that he was seeking some form of civil power.[10] He was frequently connected to the post-Hughes Labor party and labour movement, assisting in the removal of all signs of communism from the unions.[11] He did however deny this connection, and speaking to the press around the time of the 1954 Labor Party split stated that “the Catholic Church has never aimed to control the Labor Party – or any other party.”[12] Mannix justified his continued involvement in politics despite being a member of the clergy by saying that “the Church [has] expressed its viewpoint on public policy… no more than… non-Catholic religious bodies”.[13] He also argued that his anti-Empire comments and actions were as an Australian citizen participating in public debate and not as a member of the Catholic Church.[14] Despite his apparent intentions, his words had a particularly uniting affect on Catholics in Melbourne.[15] His famous Australian Nationalist mantra coupled with his prominent position in the Catholic Church gave his words greater power in public debate. His speeches provided a clear, Australian Nationalist alternative to Empire loyalism. This was out of line with the Catholic Church’s history in Australia, as it had not made significant attempts to join with the British Empire even prior to Mannix becoming Archbishop. Not long after his arrival in Australia Mannix delivered a sermon at the consecration of a Brisbane church, of which even the design defied Anglo-Australian design conventions.[16] This gave Mannix a backing which already did not overtly support the British.

Another area of British influence that saw Mannix become involved in politics in the 1950s was the White Australia Policy. The White Australia Policy was implemented to encourage immigration to Australia purely from European countries, with the primary intention being to encourage British migration with the subsidisation of British travel.[17] Mannix was opposed to this single stream of immigration, describing the policy as “crude” and saying that Australia had much to learn from other races.[18] His position opposed both the Australian and British immigration models which had retained Australia as being for the British for half a century, and also defied the ideal of Australians being a British people. When presenting a speech on the White Australia Policy in 1949, Mannix spoke as an Australian seeking to establish that “there is no colour bar in Australia”.[19] This is a sign that his Australian Nationalism mixed with his negative perception of the British Empire had placed him in a position where he truly felt part of Australian society, and the pro-British nature of Australia’s immigration policy provoked him to act against it.

Mannix rose to national fame during the conscription debates of the First World War. The issue of conscription arose shortly after his arrival in Australia and quickly exposed Mannix’s interest in involving himself in politics. The debates also showed the new-found nationalistic spirit he had for Australia, which would define his position in the conscription debates and in the rest of his life. Mannix’s first address was in the same vein as that of Melbourne Irish Cardinal Moran, in stating that he would “claim to be – and as time goes on I hope to justify my claim to be considered – a good Australian.” [20] His nationalistic enthusiasm for Australia, coupled with his Irish past drove his opposition to British Empire influence in Australia. In 1916 he objected to the British Government’s execution of the rebels in the Irish Easter Rebellion[21], and he supported Éamon de Valera’s party in Ireland, of which both British and Australian parliaments disapproved.[22] This is a further indication that his roots in Ireland influenced his perception of the United Kingdom and encouraged him to guide Australia away from its power. Mannix was continually frustrated by the actions of the British in his homeland, not participating in civic engagements during the 1920s in protest to the British policy toward Northern Ireland.[23] His Irish nationalism and the standing he took on many issues as a result of its influence made him a figurehead for Australian nationalists. He made his position on the Empire, and where his political allegiances lay, clear with his landmark phrase “Australia first, the Empire second”.[24] Because of this criticism of the Empire and conscription and his pro-Irish Nationalism stance, Mannix attracted the attention of the government censor during the First World War, as was any person who spoke out about the war and Empire.[25] In his first year as Archbishop, Mannix wrote the first foreword for the nationalistic Christian Australian magazine called Australia, in which he questioned Australia’s interests in the war in Europe. In this he said that he believed “that if the war had been in the hands of the [Australian] people, there would have been no war”. Mannix’s actions had some sway in the Australian public’s perception of the Empire, and in its celebration. The great display of British Empire pride that was Empire Day, established to celebrate not just the birthday of Australia’s late first Queen but also to celebrate all things British, can have its loss of importance to Australians traced back to the actions of Daniel Mannix. The celebration started to lose its shine as an apolitical celebration of Empire pride as a result of the bitter squabbles over Australia’s direction, and conscription, during the First World War. As a result Empire Day came to represent less about the Empire, and more about the exclusive celebration of conservative attitudes in Australia.[26] As a major figure in that debate, which encouraged the degredation of loyal Empire sentiment, Mannix’s words had an effect on a wider population of Australians than the predominantly middle class Irish in Australia[27] who he most directly represented. The Australian people grew tired of the Empire during the conscription debates which Mannix participated in during the First World War.[28] The collapse of overt Empire loyalism could be said to have reached its conclusion shortly after Mannix’s death, when in 1967 New South Wales led the states to move Empire Day to the less fanatically celebrated Queen’s Birthday Weekend.[29]

As a result of his high profile involvement in the politics of the First World War Mannix became one of the more influential public figures in Australia. Archbishop Mannix and his predecessor Archbishop Carr, were decidedly different in their approaches to the church and state issues. During the First World War, the Hughes Labor government backed conscription to meet with British demands for a greater Australian presence in the war in Europe. Under Carr, who was Archbishop during the first referendum on conscription, the church did not formally enter into the politics of the debate. Carr stated on the 10^th of October 1916 that “conscription was a purely state matter; the Church neither advocates nor opposes it”[30]. However by this time Mannix had already delivered a speech that entered him into the thick of the conscription debate, a debate which would arise a second time in the first year of his becoming Archbishop. Taking the chance to speak on the matter at the opening of a Clifton Hill bazaar in September 1916, Mannix expressed his concerns about conscription. Where Hughes would argue that Australia was “part of the British Empire” [31], Mannix argued that Australians should not be so affected by the war in Europe, and “that Australia has already done [more than] her full share” for the war. His speech was steeped in patriotic descriptions of Australians, describing Australian soldiers as “brave” whilst suggesting that all Australians are “peace loving people”.[32] This clashed strongly with Hughes’ pro-Empire stance, putting him directly in the firing line of the Prime Minister. Mannix was the only prominent public figure of the “no” side in the conscription debates, becoming the champion of the anti-conscriptionists. His renowned wit and sarcasm matched that of Hughes’ wordsmanship, giving the disorganised “no” camp a strong message.[33] Conscription was Hughes’ response to the demands of the British to increase the Australian troop numbers. In line with his pro-British stance, Hughes attacked Mannix and other anti-conscriptionists, suggesting that they were prepared to “desert” the Empire. This helped fuel the pro-conscriptionsits and Empire loyalists in their claims of Mannix being a Sinn Feiner.[34] There was also strong opposition to Archbishop Mannix’s position on conscription in the Protestant population, which commonly supported the side of the Empire.[35] However the effect of Mannix’s very public, powerful counter-campaign to the expected response to British troop demands[36] was that it presented a clear alternative to the Empire for the people to consider. This encouraged the Australian people to see Australia as Australian, not just a British colony. Despite Mannix’s position on conscription striking deep into the hearts of Australian nationalists, who saw conscription as a threat to their freedom and the nation’s independence,[37] his arguments occasionally struck particular discord with some areas of Australian society.

Mannix was not immune from criticism and sometimes attracted public distaste for the members of the Catholic Church through his actions.[38] He earned particular unpopularity in some sections of society during the First World War when he described the war as “a trade war”, an “ordinary, sordid trade war”.[39] Not only did this challenge the United Kingdom’s motives in a still predominantly British Australia, but it also detached Mannix himself from people who had fought in the war, or had seen their sons die for the Empire in the war.[40] Mannix received a great amount of criticism from Prime Minister Hughes, who described the success of the anti-conscription campaign in the first conscription referendum as “a triumph for the… anti-British.”[41] This attack was not only directed at the most public figure of the “no” campaign, it was also directed specifically at the people of the Catholic Church. When re-opening the debate for the second referendum, Hughes accused Catholics in Queensland’s Cabinet as being instrumental to the first referendum’s failure, implying that Mannix was responsible for mobilising Catholics against conscription.[42] This accusation proved that Mannix had made a significant contribution to the Australian conscription debate and to Australian culture itself, shifting it away from unquestioning support of the Empire. Despite his attacks being based on the only two occasions that Mannix had addressed the issue during the first referendum,[43] Hughes saw Mannix as a threat to the Empire, and with this accusation pulled him further into the debate in an attempt to better counter Mannix. This also made the debate a sectarian one, drawing in a great political divide between the pro-conscription Protestant Christians and the anti-conscription Catholics.[44] Pro-Empire Pamphlets were introduced with titles like “Is the Papacy anti-British?”[45], further dividing the debate along sectarian lines. Under Archbishop Mannix, the Irish St. Patricks Day Parades took on a political identity, steeped in Irish and Australian nationalism in defiance of Britain.[46] Almost immediately after arriving in Australia, Mannix encouraged Irish republicanism in Catholic schools and parishes, ultimately leading to priests and other leaders accepting Mannix’s criticism of the Empire.

Mannix had a continued effect on Australian society throughout his life and his actions shaped an Australia distinctly unique from Britain. Mannix’s contribution to Australian society was so great that his reaction to British society, amongst other aspects of his life, have been explored in popular culture. Such works include Barry Oakley’s play The Feet of Daniel Mannix (1975) and Frank Hardy’s novel Power without Glory, in which he was satirically portrayed as Archbishop Daniel Malone. The Empire was not considered a good influence for Australia by Daniel Mannix due to his Irish history. Mannix saw the British as oppressive; a viewpoint which he carried to Australia when he emigrated from Ireland. A nine foot high statue of Daniel Mannix, erected in 1997, now stands outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne.[47] This large erection of Mannix’s image overlooks the Victorian Parliament House, presenting parliament with the larger than life image that Mannix had shown to national politics, and to Britain, when he was alive.

---

Footnotes

[1] The People who made Australia Great, 1st ed. (Sydney: Collins Publishers Australia, 1988), page 147. [2] Australian Dictionary of Biography Online Edition, “Mannix, Daniel (1864 – 1963),” Australian National University, Canberra, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A100391b.htm, (accessed May 22, 2010). [3] The People who made Australia Great, page 146. [4] James G. Murtagh, Australia: The Catholic Chapter, 3rd ed. , (Melbourne: The Polding Press, 1969), on the economy, 174; on Communism, 177; on the White Australia Policy, 249; on the economy, 206. [5] ibid, 174. [6] ibid, 187. [7] ibid, 186. [8] The People who made Australia Great, page 146. [9] ibid, page 146. [10] ibid, page 147. [11] ibid, page 147. [12] James G. Murtagh, Australia: The Catholic Chapter, 219. [13] ibid, 219. [14] The People who made Australia Great,148. [15] The Encyclopaedia of Melbourne, 1st ed. , 371. [16] Edmund Campion, Australian Catholics (Ringwood: Viking, 1987), 80 [17] P. Spearritt and D.Walker, AUS1010: ‘Out of Empire’ Semester One 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), 70. [18] James G. Murtagh, Australia: The Catholic Chapter, 249. [19] ibid, 249. [20] Campion, Australian Catholics, page 81 [21] The People who made Australia Great, page 147 [22] ibid, page 147 [23] ibid, page 147 [24] Campion, Australian Catholics, 84  [25] The Encyclopaedia of Melbourne, 1st ed. , 756 [26] P. Spearritt and D. Walker (eds.), Australian Popular Culture (George Allen and Unwin: Sydney, 1979), 36 [27] The Encyclopaedia of Melbourne, 1st ed. , 370 [28] Spearritt and Walker, ed. , Australian Popular Culture, page 36 [29] ibid, page34 [30] James G. Murtagh, Australia: The Catholic Chapter, 158. [31] Deborah Gare & David Ritter, Making Australian History: Perspectives on the Past Since 1788 (Thomson: Melbourne, 2008), 319 [32] No author stated, “Address by Dr. Mannix.,” Argus (Melbourne), September 18, 1916, first edition. [33] Donald Horne, Billy Hughes: Prime Minister of Australia 1915-1923 (Black Inc.: Melbourne, 2000), 128 [34] Donald Horne, Billy Hughes: Prime Minister of Australia 1915-1923 (Black Inc.: Melbourne, 2000), 132 [35] P. Spearritt and D.Walker, AUS1010: ‘Out of Empire’ Semester One 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), 23 [36] Donald Horne, Billy Hughes: Prime Minister of Australia 1915-1923 (Black Inc.: Melbourne, 2000), 11 [37] James G. Murtagh, Australia: The Catholic Chapter, 158. [38] Campion, Australian Catholics, 87. [39] The People who made Australia Great, page 147. [40] ibid, page 147. [41] Campion, Australian Catholics, 83 [42] ibid, 83 [43] ibid, 83 [44] P. Spearritt and D.Walker, AUS1010: ‘Out of Empire’ Semester One 2010, (Melbourne: National Centre for Australian Studies, 2010), 23 [45] Campion, Australian Catholics, 84 [46] The Encyclopaedia of Melbourne, 1st ed. , 371 [47] James Gobbo, "Victoria's Governor pays tribute to Dr Mannix," AD2000 12, no. 4 (1999), http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/may1999p10_352.html.

---

For a full bibliography and a printable version of this essay please click here.

This essay is copyright © William Kulich 2010.