Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Could Australia have been an unitary state, instead of a federal one? If so, how and what would have been the effects?
@SenatorChickpea
@SenatorChickpea
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Unitary Australia
- Thread starter Ricardolindo
- Start date
- Location
- Colwyn Bay/Manchester
- Pronouns
- He/him
I doubt it initially but I think it was ALP policy pre-Whitlam?
- Pronouns
- he/him
It's hard to see how this could happen, at least with something recognisable to us as 'Australia.'
Political unification of the continent required a federal structure to one degree or another. Small colonies like Tasmania would never have joined a unitary state. Western Australia was too distant to accept one. New South Wales and Victoria would not cede authority to each other.
This is not to say that there were not people who wanted a unitary structure in the nineteenth century, but this is besides the point. There were people who wanted a local monarchy, or a socialist republic- in fact, both of those ideas were influential than a unitary state. But just because the idea was put forward does not mean it was politically possible.
I suppose it's theoretically possible that a unitary state could arrive from an Australia who gains autonomy or independence through some other process than the long negotiations over Federation- but that would require a political upheaval on a scale that dwarfs anything in nineteenth century Australasian history, and I don't see how you get there. The colonies were a long way away from a war of independence!
More promising is the idea that Federation leads to a less successful constitution. I suppose an earlier Federation could do this, but I feel that would lead to an Articles of Federation analogy with the Federal Council, with a much weaker central government. That would give you the seeds of a new constitutional convention later on, but it's hard to see how you make the imaginative leap from 'we need more centralisation' to 'give up all federal structures full stop.'
After 1901, it becomes harder. There's always been plenty of people who think the current Federal system doesn't work very well, but amending the constitution is really difficult- and in the first fifty or so years after Federation I honestly think that a serious attempt to scrap the states would lead at the very least to Western Australian secession.* Hell, 2020-2021 has shown us how fiercely parochial Australians can be.
Yeah. Before 1900, I don't see how you convince the settler colonies to unify without a federal structure. After 1900, I don't see how you ever get a majority of voters in a majority of states to scrap the system.
*I've written on the board before about how unlikely I find that prospect, so this should underline how unworkable I find the idea of a shift to a unitary state.
Political unification of the continent required a federal structure to one degree or another. Small colonies like Tasmania would never have joined a unitary state. Western Australia was too distant to accept one. New South Wales and Victoria would not cede authority to each other.
This is not to say that there were not people who wanted a unitary structure in the nineteenth century, but this is besides the point. There were people who wanted a local monarchy, or a socialist republic- in fact, both of those ideas were influential than a unitary state. But just because the idea was put forward does not mean it was politically possible.
I suppose it's theoretically possible that a unitary state could arrive from an Australia who gains autonomy or independence through some other process than the long negotiations over Federation- but that would require a political upheaval on a scale that dwarfs anything in nineteenth century Australasian history, and I don't see how you get there. The colonies were a long way away from a war of independence!
More promising is the idea that Federation leads to a less successful constitution. I suppose an earlier Federation could do this, but I feel that would lead to an Articles of Federation analogy with the Federal Council, with a much weaker central government. That would give you the seeds of a new constitutional convention later on, but it's hard to see how you make the imaginative leap from 'we need more centralisation' to 'give up all federal structures full stop.'
After 1901, it becomes harder. There's always been plenty of people who think the current Federal system doesn't work very well, but amending the constitution is really difficult- and in the first fifty or so years after Federation I honestly think that a serious attempt to scrap the states would lead at the very least to Western Australian secession.* Hell, 2020-2021 has shown us how fiercely parochial Australians can be.
Yeah. Before 1900, I don't see how you convince the settler colonies to unify without a federal structure. After 1900, I don't see how you ever get a majority of voters in a majority of states to scrap the system.
*I've written on the board before about how unlikely I find that prospect, so this should underline how unworkable I find the idea of a shift to a unitary state.
Last edited: