Australia’s capital was conceived in acrimonious jealous, born in secrecy and was under-nourished for the first half-century of its life. Now it is one of the great creations of human endeavour.
In the 1890s the vision of federation spread across the continent. At that time, the question of a capital for the future federated colonies was hardly on the agenda. By the end of the decade it threatened to wreck the whole project.
At the constitutional conventions in 1890 in Melbourne and 1891 in Sydney the big questions were financial. NSW, the mother colony, was worried about having to pay the way of less prosperous colonies. Federation was much more popular in Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia than NSW. NSW wanted free trade and did not want too much regulation of the labour force. Victoria wanted protection for its manufacturing and strong federal powers over arbitration of working conditions.
The early drafts of the Constitution which arose from the unelected 1890 and 1891 conventions merely said that it would be a matter for the new Federal Parliament to determine where the federal capital should be, though the then anti-federalist William Lyne attempted to sow discord by suggesting that the Constitution should fix the place of the capital.
For six years the colonies mulled over various drafts until the directly elected conventions of 1897 and 1898. The issue of the federal capital hardly rated, except in NSW. Because delegates to the 1897 and 1898 conventions were to be directly elected, populism was rife. Candidates in favour and against federation in NSW argued that NSW as the “”mother colony” should house the capital, hinting that it should be Sydney or some other NSW town. Some pro-federationists thought that having the capital in NSW would persuade an unenthusiastic populace to favour federation.
Edmund Barton remained constant in arguing that the Federal Parliament should decide itself where to sit. George Reid (the Yes-No man on federation) argued that it should circulate among the state capitals. But that experience in the United States until Washington was founded in 1800 proved almost unworkable.
Despite the arguments in NSW, the draft that was presented at the beginning of the Adelaide convention in 1897 still had parliament deciding. It read: “”The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament. Until such determination the Parliament shall be summoned to meet at such place within the Commonwealth as a majority of the Governors of the States, or, in the event of an equal division of opinion amongst the Governors, as the Governor-General shall direct.”
Barton had under-estimated the potential for populism that the prestige of housing the capital could generate.
Two issues sparked in Adelaide. In which colony should the capital be and should it be a separate federal territory.
The arose despite the observation of Western Australia’s John Forrest that, “”We have met four times to consider the drafting of the Constitution, but until now no motion (about specifying details of the capital in the Constitution) has been made.
The prospect of the capital being in an existing colonial capital met with four damning objections. First, the capital should not be (in the words of William Lyne, later Premier of NSW,) “”at any sport close to the seashore, or in a position where is could easily be attacked . . . Sydney is likely place of attack . The same objection operates against the selection of Melbourne and to even greater extent against Hobart.”
Secondly, there would be the huge cost. When Ballarat was mentioned, John Downer protested, “”We should have to buy the place first.”
Thirdly, as Forrest pointed out, if the state and federal authorities were in the same city, the importance and dignity of the state Governor and Government would be lessened.
Fourthly, if the convention were to nominate an existing colonial capital, it would cause jealousy. In the words of Joseph Carruthers, of NSW, they would be “”importing into the discussion the possibility of risking the federation”.
The debate over the capital got very heated and exposed the petty jealousy of the colonial representatives.
Lyne initially backed off an amendment that would have the Constitution stipulate that the capital be in NSW, but then pressed it to the vote, which failed. Lyne said there was a great deal of anti-NSW sentiment among the other colonies. If Ballarat were nominated, he thought that Tasmanians and South Australians would agree just to edge NSW out. He thought the Constitution should state NSW or federation would falter at the referendum. Only Queensland would support NSW, he said, but Queensland was not represented at the convention and might not come into the Federation (it came in after the conventions).
Carruthers suggested that the selection of the capital “”is one of the greatest points of federation”. He along with Barton and Forrest urged that it be left to the Federal Parliament to decide. But Lyne pressed on. He ignored the fact that his amendment stating that the capital being NSW was doomed and pressed it to the vote. He was warned that by pressing it to the vote and failing people might misread it as a determination by the convention that the capital should not be in NSW, rather than a statement that the Parliament should decide leaving the selection of NSW as possible even most likely.
The vote was pressed and lost.
Very sensibly, pro-federationist Alexander Peacock moved that the capital be in Victoria, knowing the move would be defeated and the convention left with rejections of both colonies, so people in NSW would not feel slighted and therefore more likely to vote against federation.
Tasmania’s Edward Braddon mocked Lyne by saying the capital should be in Tasmania with a bridge built across Bass Strait. And South Australia’s John Cockburn equally mocking said, “”All the capitals that have for any lengthened period occupied an important place upon the page of history have been cities situated on important rivers. On these grounds I should like to put in a claim first of all on behalf of Adelaide.”
All colonies expressed the fear that NSW would get commercial advantage by having the capital, particularly if it were Sydney.
The debates read like a modern Hansard – full of childishness and point-scoring. People looking back now have marvelled at the statesmanlike character of the founding fathers. They bemoaned the fact that the republic debate and conventions were not of the same standard. It’s rubbish. The 1890s constitutional debates are full of petty jealousy, parochialism and self-serving point-scoring. Lyne, especially, was looking for short-term political gain, taking cheap shots at Melbourne’s climate and petty pride in the words “”mother colony”. He flunked it at the elected convention, only getting his way at the 1899 Premiers conference (though George Reid as NSW Premier). That conference met in secret. There were no minutes, just a memorandum at the end. It fixed upon the compromise that ultimately came about. The capital was to be in NSW, more than 100 miles from Sydney, more than 100 square miles (255 square km) in area on land owned by the Commonwealth as a federal territory. And Parliament would meet at Melbourne until the new capital was ready.
The last element caused NSW to act without delay, until the depression and war slowed things.
But what sort of territory was it to be?
At the Adelaide convention, a NSW delegate, James Walker, moved an amendment, adding the words that the seat of government “”shall be within an area which shall be federal territory”. Walker argued, “”It is my desire is that the federal capital shall be in some place which is not at present a capital city, thereby removing a bone of contention, and giving us an opportunity of forming another centre of population.”
Walker’s amendment came after a long debate on land tenure. Bernhard Wise proposed the Constitution prevent any Commonwealth land being sold as freehold. He held to the principles of Henry George, an American who went bust in the 1870s depression there. He propounded a theory that if the people, through Government, could capture all of the increase in land value which was created by population increase, settlement and infrastructure improvement, there would be no need for other taxes and land speculation would end. Wise cited unseemly land speculation in Melbourne compared to the farm-leasehold system I the Mallee.
He wanted to end “”all the evils which have attended the reckless alienation of territory since the foundation of these colonies.”
Barton cautioned that if the Commonwealth Parliament were attracted to the idea it should adopt it, rather than have it cemented into the Constitution. Richard O’Connor said the convention was the wrong place “”to test the feeling on a fanciful doctrine.”
As to the capital, contrary views abounded. Walker said, “”Perhaps the best thing is to give away the land so as to get the people to reside on it and occupy it.”
Cockburn said this was a special case. “”Wherever that capital is fixed there is bound to be a large influx of population and a rise in land values to a fabulous extent.”
Wise said that if leasehold were not mandated in the Constitution, “”people will rush in a get the land beforehand”.
To some extent they were all right.
To get the place populated, land was virtually given away in Canberra up to about 1971. But it was leasehold and rents applied. When the people came there were fabulous rises in values – a $300 block in 1971 is worth a thousand times that 30 years later. And those that did get in beforehand did get big profits based on population and infrastructure.
However, mandated leasehold was rejected by the convention.
Barton got it wiped out on the voices. Again, though, the directly elected convention meeting in public was over-ridden by the secret meeting of the five Premiers (Queensland was still not in) in Melbourne in 1899.
So here we sit on our leasehold land more than 100 miles from Sydney in a territory so much greater than 100 square miles that it can fit Namadgi National Park.
And still there is land speculation and still there are attempts to gain commercial advantage through proximity to Sydney.