John M. Williams - The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History

John M. Williams

The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005

Pp. xv + 1288             Boxed Hardback          ISBN  0 522 85042 1

While the bulk (31x23x7 cm), not to mention the price, of this volume would seem to dictate a substantial review, its documentary nature means that it is difficult to go much beyond description and indeed congratulation. John M. Williams has assembled an impressive collection of reports and legislative drafts relating to the history of Australian federation, from the Privy Council report of 1849 through to the Commonwealth constitution of 1900. Wherever possible he has reproduced facsimiles of working drafts from the papers of participants such as Inglis Clark, Griffith and Garran. Other sources are given in modern typeface. The presentation also includes a lengthy tabulation of amendments pressed by the various colonies to the 1897 draft constitution (pp. 669-704), an imbroglio which would have fatally discouraged less committed enthusiasts. Another variation sets the 1897 Sydney and 1898 Melbourne drafts side by side for ease of comparison (pp. 850-909). Even as unadorned documentation, interesting reflections stand out. Shorn of the context of metropolitan hauteur, the Colonial Office comments on the 1897 draft (pp. 711-61) come across as remarkably helpful. But in section 2 of the Adelaide version of the Bill, Australia’s roundheads adopted the cavalier formula: ‘This Act shall bind the Crown’. Surprisingly, this survived three years of trans-global scrutiny before being altered to the more decorous formula: ‘The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors’ – just as well given Victoria’s age in 1900 – and almost the wording suggested by Inglis Clark back in 1891. (pp. 1187, 1209, 80) A detailed clausal index assists the reader to trace the history of individual provisions, and there is a helpful general index as well (which, in advertently knighting Joe Chamberlain, provides just about the only grumble for the eagle-eyed reviewer.) 

Williams links the sections with brief introductory essays, always incisive and usually enlivened by some human detail. His narrative only occasionally strays from the technical process of drafting, for instance when it is necessary to explain how the 1898 referendum results reopened key questions. (pp. 1142-6) There is a splendid immediacy about photo-reproducing the very documents on which the Fathers themselves laboured, but there are also problems. The odd wavy line can probably be attributed to a gremlin in somebody’s photocopier, and nobody has ever pretended that Victorian penmanship was designed for legibility. But some annotations have copied badly and are hard to decipher, notably Griffith’s comments on the 1891 first proof (pp. 167-86) while those vital operative words ‘La Reyne Le Veult’ on the Westminster archive copy of the 1900 Act are ghostly indeed. One may wonder why the Conventions did not double-space their printed drafts, but perhaps this would have invited even more textual fiddling. A more substantial reservation would suggest that, while it is striking to glimpse the historical moment at which ‘Dominion’ was struck out and ‘Commonwealth’ inserted in the drafting process, we still need to turn to J.A. La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (Melbourne, 1972) to understand why such changes were made.

A century ago, Joseph Pope, loyal biographer and former secretary of Sir John A. Macdonald, quarried the papers of Canada’s first prime minister to produce a similar collection tracing the origins of the British North America Act, under a wordy title generally cited as Confederation… (Toronto, 1895). But Macdonald’s archive was incomplete and, except for one illustrative facsimile, Pope made no effort to include the marginalia. He was also far too canny to contribute any commentary, preferring not to confront his master’s penchant for backdoor centralisation. No doubt Williams has the advantage of superior technology, but the comparison nonetheless establishes that he has done by far the better job. He writes of his hope ‘that these constitutional drafts will be a resource that others may use in the development of further interpretations of the Australia Constitution.’ (p. xv) A reviewer may add the additional prayer that at least some northern hemisphere libraries will acquire copies to support such research.