Separation Movement
The Colony still in its infancy and federation in Australia about to become a reality, the people of the Eastern Goldfields wanted to separate from the rest of Western Australia. After the discovery of gold at Coolgardie (1892) and Kalgoorlie (1893), these towns were at the centre of the Eastern Goldfields, and the flow of immigrants from the Eastern Colonies increased. It argued the case for the Goldfields’ separation from Western Australia and the formation of a new Colony/State in the Goldfields, named “Auralia“.
Below is a newspaper report of a meeting held in Katanning in 1900 to discuss the movement and its ramifications for Katanning, farmers, and the state as a whole.
THE SEPARATION MOVEMENT.
PUBLIC MEETING AT KATANNING.
THE PROPOSAL CONDEMNED.
West Australian
27 February 1900
A public meeting was held at Katanning on Saturday last for the purpose of further considering a motion in regard to the question of separation, which was tabled at a meeting on January 28. About 120 persons attended, including the Director of Public Works, Mr. F. H. Piesse, M.L.A. for Katanning. The chair was taken by Mr. J. C. Warren, president of the Katanning Farmers’ Association.
A suggestion was made some time ago by those interested in separation that an expression of opinion should be obtained from the people in the Katanning district as to what course they would take in the event of separation being likely of attainment and Albany joining in the proposed new State.
At the meeting on January 28, some discussion took place upon the resolution which was then proposed by Mr. Norrish in favour of separation, and the further discussion of the matter was adjourned. At the meeting on Saturday night, Mr. T. Norrish again moved “That this meeting, while regretting the movement for separation on the part of Albany and the Eastern goldfields, is of opinion that should the movement be successful it is advisable for the district to join them.”
He said that be considered that the interests of Katanning were so closely associated with those of Albany that in the event of the latter deciding to join in with the goldfields in separating from the older part of the colony they (Katanning) should also join. There seemed to be a desire on the part of the Government to centralise everything at Perth and Fremantle, and this course was not acceptable to the people of the district. They looked upon Albany as their natural port, and every facility should be given them to make it such. This could. be better attained, in his opinion, by uniting with Albany and thus having a port to themselves.
Mr. W. Pemble, in seconding the resolution, said that he did not support the resolution so far as the separation movement was concerned, but more with the object of ascertaining the feeling of the meeting upon the question. It would be better to set the matter at rest. He was still of opinion that it should be better for the colony to federate and, in this instance, they could not disassociate the question of federation from that of separation. While not desirous of seeing separation, he thought that if the object which the separationists had in view, namely, to force the hands of the Government, did bring about separation, it would have been justifiable. Mr. F. J. Crosby supported the resolution in the abstract.
Mr. R. L. Bell strongly opposed the resolution. Speaking in the interests of farmers, he pointed out that no good could be gained by separating. The markets of Perth and Fremantle were of great importance to the people of Katanning, greater even than the markets of the goldfields. Under separation the people of the eastern districts, who were more favourably situated in regard to the goldfields trade, would no doubt obtain a much greater share of that trade than the Katanning district, and consequently the latter would depend more largely upon the markets of Perth and Fremantle. He spoke against federation and stated that he had not altered his opinion in any way. Federation would be very detrimental to the farming interests.
Mr. J. C. Cook said that he was entirely in favour of separation. He considered that Albany, being the port of the district, they should unite with her in obtaining her rights. In his opinion, they could do very well without the markets of Perth and Fremantle. The tactics of the Government were intended to delay federation, and he considered the Premier was not in earnest in regard to his advocacy of the cause.
Mr. A. E. Piesse moved, as an amendment, “That this meeting is of opinion that separation would be most detrimental to the interests of this district and deplores that such a movement was ever originated on the goldfields or Albany.”
He said that a movement of this kind did very much injury to the farming interests, as it caused people in other parts of the colony who were taking an interest in their welfare to question their sincerity in regard to federation. Much help had been rendered to the farming community by those who had taken their part in regard to federation, but if meeting of this kind were held the sympathy of those who had assisted them would probably be lost. Since the last meeting he had received a letter from a resident of the goldfields, who had also forwarded to him a copy of the Kalgoorlie Miner, containing a leader on the meeting which had recently been held at Katanning. His correspondent pointed out that if the farmers in and around Katanning advocated separation in the hope of obtaining any consideration, from the people of the goldfields they would find themselves grievously mistaken.
As a whole, the mining communities were not in any way friendly to the farmers. The writer further said that the leader in the Kalgoorlie Miner confirmed this opinion. He (the speaker) did not look seriously upon the question under discussion, for the reason that he thought that the good sense of the farmers would show them that it would be very much to their detriment to in any way think of becoming portion of the proposed new State.
The Rev. W. Kennedy seconded the amendment. He said that at the last meeting he had spoken in support of the resolution, but he had since come to the conclusion that separation would not be advantageous to the district. At the same time, he was of opinion that federation was bound to come, and to him it seemed futile to discuss the question of separation.
Mr. F. H. Piesse, M.L.A., said that he was pleased to have the opportunity of being present at the invitation of the president. When he saw the report of the last meeting, he was surprised to find that some people in the district of Katanning had called a meeting to advocate separation. He had asked himself the question whether the settlers had seriously considered the matter and knowing as he did that the interests of the farming community would be seriously affected by separation, the action taken appeared to, him to be incomprehensible.
He pointed out the disadvantage under which they would labour if that district joined in the separation movement, as they would be robbed of their principal markets, namely, those of Perth and Fremantle; and if they adopted the course which had been suggested of sending their products through Albany, thence by sea, and thence by the proposed railway from Esperance to Coolgardie, it would be a round-about way, which would result in financial loss.
The present railway system served them much better, as the markets not only of the goldfields, but of Perth and Fremantle as well, were available to them. The present railway tariff, which provided most favourable rates for long distances, enabled them to compete satisfactorily with those in the eastern districts who reside nearer to the goldfields. Mr. Piesse also said that in the event of Albany joining in the separation movement and becoming part of the new State, the point which was mentioned by Mr. Norrish, that that port would be lost to them appeared to him to be most ridiculous. The port of Albany did not belong to the people of Albany any more than it did to the people of that district and its position would be of considerable advantage to them in the future as a port from which large exports from the districts would be made.
Sir John Forrest
He referred to a statement which he had made to the Press, and which was read at the last meeting, and said he considered that, as he did not look upon the matter in a serious light, it seemed necessary to further deal with the question. As federation had been mentioned in connection with the question of separation, and as some speakers had alluded to the matter by stating that it now appeared to be a new move on the part of the Premier, Sir John Forrest, that they should accept federation provided that certain concessions were made, he would like to say that this was an entirely erroneous impression.
Notwithstanding his (Mr. Piesse’s) actions, which had been openly averse to federation under present conditions, the Premier had consistently advocated federation. In proposing in the Assembly to submit both Bills to the people, a proposal which had been approved of by the Assembly, the Premier’s object was entirely in the interests of the country, and more particularly in regard to that clause dealing with the retention of the duties for the fixed period of five years; the main object was to afford that protection to the farming community, which they had so often represented as being necessary to their welfare. Sir John Forrest’s kindly feeling to the farmers was well known, and he (Mr. Piesse) was sure that in advocating this course he had been prompted by no other desire than to do all he could to assist them. They could see for themselves that had this not been the Premier’s desire, the easier course for him would have been to have abandoned this idea altogether, and to have accepted federation on the terms proposed.
The principal object after all had been to study the interests of the producers of the colony, whose condition was different to that of those engaged in other occupations.
If the course referred to had been taken, those who were now engaged in the development of agriculture would find themselves in an unequal position in regard to their products as compared with the producers in the eastern colonies, who, owing to a more advanced state of agriculture would be able to unequally compete with them. One other serious matter which called for their consideration was that if separation should take place, and if Katanning were included in the new State, the Government of such new State would be domiciled at one of the towns on the eastern goldfields. Such Government would naturally be out of sympathy with them, and they were not likely to receive that consideration at its hands which under present conditions they were receiving. The amendment on being put was carried by 18 votes to 8.
The Chairman, before the meeting closed, said that, though strongly in favour of federation, he was entirely opposed to separation. He had taken part in the two meetings which had been held only in his official capacity. If federation could be accomplished there would be no one more pleased than himself to see the present Government continuing in office.
Mr. F. H. Piesse, who moved a vote of thanks to the chairman, pointed to the fact that at the first meeting only 24 voted and 26 at the present meeting. On each occasion, there were about 120 present. He urged them to exercise their votes, otherwise they might on some occasion be placed in a position that they would seriously regret.
Separation Movement. Separation Movement. Separation Movement. Separation Movement. Separation Movement. Separation Movement. Separation Movement. Separation Movement.