Talk:Federation of Australia

Merge Proposal
Regarding the proposal to merge Australian federalism into Federation of Australia, I support. This is not to say they are similar articles; they are about slightly different subjects. Australian federalism concerns the different system of the federated Australia as opposed to its old system, whilst Federation of Australia concerns the process by which Australia became federated. But I still think that the new federated system should be explained in Federation of Australia, so, like I said earlier, I support. -- Daverocks 09:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I considered the differences in meaning when I placed the merge templates in the articles, but I couldn't think of any strong reason why 'federalism in practice' could not be discussed here. I think a merge would only serve to enhance our coverage on the topic. As it happens, it's a topic that I am very interested in, and if I ever get back to making substantial edits, improving this article will be a priority.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that we could look at improving this article before any merge takes place? I worry that a merge would take the focus off the historical aspect, which deserves to be discussed in great detail. It, IMHO, would be ideally be a much larger article than one discussing the current arrangements. Slac  speak up!  22:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Slac. Felix the Cassowary 00:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Slac. Would like to see Federation of Australia finished before any merge Avocadia 06:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no majority support for a merger as of yet, I am going to remove the notices. I am also going to move Australian federalism to Federalism in Australia. I still think a merger is a good idea, and will float the idea again in the near future. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for Federation
A recent anon edit has added the text:


 * The movement arose out of an increased notion of nationalism among Australian born citizens, a need for a unified defence organisation against the percieved threat of imperial Japan, abolishment of traiffs that occured between the seperate state/colonies and the need for national standards for measurement and transport.

I thought that the latter three reasons were far more predominant that increased nationalism. Everything I have ever read suggests that Australian nationalism didn't emerge until during WWI and that the citizens of the colonies generally considered themselves to be subjects of the Empire above all else, then Queenslanders or Victorians or whatever, and then residents of the Australian continemt. I'm going to delete the nationalism reference pending some further discussion. -- Adz 05:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
"Chingchong longhong" etc and the web address at the bottom of the page. I'd be surprised were these entries deliberate references... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.180.132 (talk) 3 August 2006

Things named for Federation
Is it worth listing a few significant things named for the Federation of Australia such as Federation Peak, Federation Square etc? Or is it a little too trivial? -Shogun 00:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it wouls be a good addition - provided it doesn't spiral into a giant list of all the things named for it, there are heaps of geographical features named for it for example, its probably only worth mentioing a few of them.--Peta 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I've added a few in their own section that I think are relevant. The Federal Highway (Australia) might be a little iffy though, but i'm trying to balance it towards landmarks that have wiki pages currently. -Shogun 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

referendum results
Could the results of the referendums for each state be included in the article? --Astrokey 44 07:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Added them now. Perhaps there should be a separate page for the referendums? as all the other Australian referendums do at Template:Australian elections --Astrokey 44 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Western Australia
Would it be worth mentioning that Western Australia only made their decision to join very late in the process (such that they are only mentioned in the preamble, not the rest of the document), and that WA voted for succession back in the 30's or somesuch - that should at least rate a mention in the rosy outlook for australia. 58.7.206.131 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Secessionism in Western Australia for all the details of that. I've added a link to that article in the see also section, but it probably deserves a mention in the main article. Graham 87 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you wrote this 10 years ago, but I recently read this “misconception” from someone else;
 * Section 26 mentions all 6 states, 95 is only about WA and mentions WA in the title, and the only other section to cite a state is 125, detailing allocation of part of NSW to (ACT). MBG02 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Murray-Darling River
Can you please put in something about the murray darling river!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.235.153 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Role of New Zealand
The article mentions that New Zealand was involved in earlier conferences, but does not describe why it was not involved in latter conferences. Some mention of the reasons for New Zealand leaving the discussions would be useful. 122.109.183.146 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by Ferbwe
Ferbwe has made some significant changes to the first (after the lead) section of the article, including renaming it from The Federal Idea to Federation of Australia. I'm not happy with the changes, if for no other reason than that formatting and wikilinking have been lost. However, I'm assuming good faith rather than vandalism, so I'm reluctant to revert it again (having already done so once), even given that this user has already been reverted a couple of times and warned. Do other editors have an comment on these changes? Ferbwe, would you please justify your changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's been nothing else here, but more edits of the article by Ferbwe, and multiple reversions by others, as well as Ferbwe being temporarily blocked, so I'm taking that as general disapproval of Ferbwe's changes. The most recent reversions didn't appear to to be complete, so I've rolled back the article to the version of 2011-06-01 by R'n'B, that being the last version before Ferbwe started. (This also undoes some of my own minor copy-edits, but I don't think loses any other useful work.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Centenary of Federation
I've just become aware that we have no article on the Centenary of Federation. We have numerous articles on things that were done specifically to commemorate that event (a year-long series of events, actually), but nothing on the event itself. There's not even one single mention in this article.

Have I missed something? Does anyone have an article almost ready to go, just waiting for some final detail? Or will someone have to start from scratch? I'm happy to start collecting info, but I don't want to recreate anyone's wheel. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point; I can't find an article (or a work in progress) about this subject) either. I've just created Category:Australian historical anniversaries to fit it in; it should probably have a subcategory as well, like Category:Centenary of Western Australia. Graham 87 03:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Myth of the "Federation of colonies"
The entire concept that 'colonies' came together in Federation to form the Commonwealth of Australia is a myth perpetuated in the education system. No resident of any of those self-governing independent British dominions considered themselves the resident of a 'colony' at that point in time. The 'colony' fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to rob Australians of a key part of their history - that being that once seven independent dominions existed with their own governments in this region. Had any one of the six dominions in Australia refused to partake in Federation then it would have joined the seventh dominion that remained apart and is now the Nation of New Zealand. The 'colonies' were young nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.164.191 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federation of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313000644/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/records.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/records.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federation of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405180301/http://www.peo.gov.au/students/cl/constitution.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/students/cl/constitution.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Fiji
Saying Fiji was originally a “part of this process” is dodgy.

The reference1 cited (1883) does not support this. It says (roughly) The Governor of Fiji was asked to send representatives, but declined saying the govt did not contemplate the early inclusion of Fiji in an Australian confederation.

There is more info at Federal Council of Australasia (for 1886) but it’s still pretty hyped up, I reckon.

MBG02 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Inter-Colony free trade
There is no mention in the article about the problem of pre-Federation cross-border customs duties. Someone above mentioned the Murray; collection and evasion of duties between Victoria and New South Wales and to a lesser extent between those two and SA was a real can of worms. Another was Silverton/Broken Hill, which though in New South Wales, relied on South Australia for most of their supplies, all subject to NSW duty. New South Wales, though ostensibly a "free-trader" according to the article, imposed hefty duties on goods coming across the border, and swingeing penalties for (attempted) evasion. In 1893 Uriah Dudley was fined £17 18s 3d (maybe $1000 in today's currency), with £1 14s 10d costs, for knowingly importing a suit valued at £5 16s 10d into Silverton from South Australia without paying Customs Duty. Doug butler (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The name "Commonwealth of Australia"
I've been reading some old clippings about Federation, and I see that the name "Commonwealth of Australia" was one of several options, and it got through "by only the narrowest margin after a number of delegates suggested that it evoked memories of the regicide and republican Oliver Cromwell". (Michael Sexton, "The past is our own country", review of 1901 Our Future's Past: Documenting Australia's Federation, various eds., Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July 1997, Spectrum, p. 10s).


 * Can we say something about the other candidates, and exactly the size of this "narrowest margin"? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The answer may be in Also for the Fiji question just above. Errantius (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)