1. Egalitarian Ideals

One significant factor in the development of democracy in Australia was the emergence of the egalitarian ideal – the belief that legal rights and opportunities should apply equally to all people, regardless of class, wealth, gender, religion, or social background. These ideas contributed to the growth of democratic values in the colony and later became an important part of Australian national identity.

Closely connected to egalitarianism is the principle of equality before the law, which is a key principle of the rule of law and the foundation of the Magna Carta. Equality before the law means that all individuals are subject to the same laws, receive the same legal protections, and are entitled to fair treatment by an independent judge in court. No person should be above the law because of their social status or power.

Background – colonial context

When the First Fleet arrived in New South Wales in 1788, English law was formally introduced into the colony. As Sir William Blackstone wrote, “the law is the birthright of every subject, for wherever they go they carry their laws with them”. This included legal traditions that had developed over centuries in Britain, including principles associated with the Magna Carta (1215), which established the idea that even governments and rulers were subject to the law. Legal texts such as Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were brought to the colony and guided the application of English legal principles in early New South Wales.

However, the unique conditions of the penal colony created some legal challenges. Most of the population consisted of transported convicts, and under English law, many convicts were affected by the doctrine of felony attaint. This doctrine stated that individuals sentenced to death (even if later pardoned or transported) were considered “dead in law.” As a result, they could not own property, sue in court, give evidence, or exercise many legal rights.

If this rule had been strictly enforced in early New South Wales, the colony would have struggled to survive. In its first years, the settlement faced severe food shortages, isolation, and a lack of skilled labour, making it essential that it become as self-sufficient as possible.

Convicts made up the majority of the population and workforce, so denying them legal rights would have undermined the colony’s ability to function. Without some recognition before the law, convicts could not effectively engage in trade, enter agreements, own or use property, or contribute fully to economic life. As a result, colonial authorities adopted a more pragmatic and flexible approach, allowing convicts to participate in legal and economic activities despite their status as being dead in law.

Kable v Sinclair (1788)

Early egalitarian ideals were demonstrated in Kable v Sinclair (1788), the first civil case heard in New South Wales.

Despite this, the court issued a writ* in their names, and their convict status was deliberately omitted from official court records to allow the case to proceed.

The trial demonstrated that colonial authorities were willing to adapt English law to suit the realities of life in New South Wales. Although the colony was only a few months old, a formal legal process was followed.

Judge Advocate David Collins and two civilian officers heard evidence, considered witness evidence, and delivered a judgement according to legal procedure.

The case was remarkable because Henry and Susannah Kable were poor, illiterate convicts challenging the authority of a powerful ship captain - and they won. In a society where class distinctions heavily influenced legal rights in Britain, the case suggested that the new colony could operate on more equal legal principles.

Read our resources on Indigenous People in the early colony here

2. Checks and Balances on Power

A second major factor in the development of democracy was the introduction of checks and balances on government power. When New South Wales was established in 1788, the Governor exercised almost complete authority. His decisions operated as law, and there were few mechanisms to limit or review his actions.

Over time, institutions and legal safeguards were introduced to restrict concentrated power, increase accountability, and ensure decisions were made according to law. These developments formed an essential foundation for democratic government.

British Ideas About Limiting Power

The concept of limiting government power came from Britain’s long, Judeo-Christian, legal traditions.

• The Magna Carta (1215) established that the monarch was subject to the law and that punishment required lawful judgement.

• The Bill of Rights 1689 (UK) further restricted royal authority and protected principles such as open elections, parliamentary oversight of taxation, and rights relating to a fair trial.

These ideas shaped how Britain governed its colonies, including New South Wales.

The Bigge Reports

By the early 1800s, the British Government was concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of the Governor, particularly during Governor Macquarie’s administration. To investigate, Britain appointed John Thomas Bigge, who produced a series of reports between 1822 and 1823.

Bigge recommended the creation of new institutions that would:

• limit the Governor’s authority

• ensure decisions were made according to law

• introduce greater accountability in the administration of the colony

These recommendations reflected Britain’s legal heritage and its emphasis on oversight and accountability.

The New South Wales Act 1823

The New South Wales Act 1823 (UK) implemented many of Bigge’s recommendations and introduced two key institutional checks on power:

• A Legislative Council, which the Governor was required to consult when making laws (although the Governor could ignore its advice); and

• An independent Supreme Court of New South Wales.

A significant feature of the Act was the requirement that the Chief Justice review all proposed laws to ensure they were not inconsistent with English Law. This meant the Governor could no longer make laws without legal scrutiny.

Two years later, King George IV appointed, by letters patent, Ralph Darling as Governor of NSW and established an Executive Council which provided advice and assistance to Darling in administrating the Colony.

The Legislative vs Executive Council

The Legislative Council existed to advise on and review proposed laws, and its members were formally appointed by the British Government (and later by the Governor after 1856). The Executive Council, by contrast, advised the Governor on executive and administrative decisions, and its membership consisted of the Governor and his closest advisers, serving as the colony’s inner governing circle rather than its law‑making body.

The Supreme Court & the Rule of Law

The establishment of the New South Wales Supreme Court was a major step toward limiting executive power. The Court ensured that:

• the Governor acted within the law

• individuals had access to legal remedies

• judicial independence was maintained

Sir Francis Forbes was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He noted that the Court was regarded by the community as a significant protection against absolute power.

The Free Press

Another important check and balance on authority was the emergence of an independent press.

Before 1824, the Sydney Gazette mainly published government notices and rarely criticised officials. This changed with the establishment of The Australian newspaper by William Charles Wentworth and Robert Wardell. In their first editorial, they argued that:

An independent press allowed the public to:

• learn about government actions

• debate political issues

• criticise decisions

• expose misuse of power

The Press Licensing Dispute

These principles were soon tested in a significant confrontation between Governor Darling and Chief Justice Forbes, which showed how the courts and the press could limit executive power.

Contribution to Democracy

The introduction of checks and balances, through the Supreme Court, Legislative Council, Executive Council and a free press, played a significant role in Australia’s democratic development. These institutions:

• limited the concentration of power in the hands of the Governor

• ensured decisions were subject to legal oversight

• increased accountability and transparency

• established early forms of representative and responsible government.

Together, they created the institutional framework that continues to support democracy in Australia today.

3. Immigration and Political Activism

A third factor that contributed to the development of democracy in Australia was the rise of political activism driven by large-scale immigration during the mid-1800s, along with the decline of convict transportation. The arrival of these migrants, many of whom had experience in movements such as British Chartism and the European revolutions, brought new expectations about representation, rights, and participation in government. As free settlers became the majority of the population, demands for a political voice, fair treatment, and a say in their own government grew stronger across the colonies.

Population Change and New Political Expectations

The Australian Gold Rushes brought rapid population growth, rising from around 430,000 people in 1851 to more that 1.7 million by 1871. By 1854, the Ballarat goldfields alone held around 25,000 miners from Britain, Ireland, Europe, America, and China.

Many of these migrants were working-class and politically experienced. Some had been involved in the British Chartist movement or the European revolutions of the 1840s, shaping their belief that ordinary people should have political rights, representation, and fair treatment under the law.

Despite this, most miners in the colonies had no voting rights, could not stand for parliament, and had limited civil rights, even though they were required pay taxes and obey laws they had no role in creating. This mismatch between expectations and reality fuelled political activism.

The Eureka Stockade (1854)

The Eureka Stockade emerged from this environment of rapid change and political frustration.

As the population grew, the Victorian Government introduced a costly monthly mining licence. Miners were required to pay the fee whether or not they found gold, and most still had no political representation. Police “licence hunts” became increasingly frequent, heightening resentment.

In November 1854, the Ballarat Reform League issued a Charter of Rights calling for:

When these demands were rejected, tensions escalated. Miners burned their licences, raised the Southern Cross flag, and built a defensive stockade at Eureka. On 3 December 1854, government forces attacked. The conflict was brief but deadly, and although miners were arrested and charged withtreason, all were acquitted, reflecting public sympathy for their cause.

The Eureka events became closely associated with debates about political representation and helped accelerate democratic reforms.

Peter Lalor, a prominent member of the Eureka Rebellion, gave an infamous speech on Bakery Hill in 1854:

Democratic Reforms

The ideas promoted by the Eureka miners shaped significant legislative reforms in the years following the incident. These included:

• the abolition of the gold licence;

• broader voting rights, including a secret ballot;

• fairer representation in government;

• freedom of assembly;

• the removal of property qualifications for MPs and voters;

• greater public participation in government; and

• improved workers’ rights.

These changes strengthened the rule of law and contributed to a more representative and accountable political system.

Self‑Government and the End of Transportation

Even before Eureka, the British Government had begun considering self‑government for several colonies. In 1788, convicts made up the majority of

the population, and political power was tightly restricted. But by the mid‑1800s:

• transportation was ending due to public opposition;

• convicts had completed their sentences;

• free settlers were arriving in large numbers; and

• the Gold Rush had made the colonies wealthier and less dependent on Britain.

Australia had the highest GDP per capita in the world at the time, and this rising prosperity helped expand political participation. As wealth increased, more people became economically secure and politically engaged. Free settlers increasingly demanded a say in how they were governed, and Britain responded by granting greater autonomy.

The Australian Constitutions Act 1850 (UK) allowed New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to draft their own constitutions. These constitutions incorporated Westminster principles, including:

• self‑government for internal matters;

• responsible government;

• bicameral parliaments; and

• elected legislative assemblies.

These reforms were a major step toward the democratic governance seen in Australia today.

With their own constitutions, the colonies were able to make further democratic reforms, often inspired by Chartist influences. By 1900, most of the colonies had peacefully adopted laws to provide for adult suffrage for lower house elections, secret ballots, no property qualifications for members of lower house, payment of members and a stop to plural voting.

4. Constitutional Development

A fourth factor in the development of Australian democracy was the process through which the colonies drafted and passed their own constitutions. Unlike many nations, this shift occurred without war or revolution. Instead, the colonies gained the power to design their own systems of government, and public debate played a central role in shaping these new political frameworks.

Public Debate and the Question of Who Should Rule

As the colonies prepared to write their constitutions, public meetings were held so communities could discuss how their governments should be structured. One of the most significant debates concerned the Upper House (the Legislative Council).

In Britain, the Upper House (the House of Lords) was traditionally made up of hereditary aristocrats. Australia, however, had no established nobility. Some influential figures, including William Wentworth, argued that wealthy free settlers, known as ‘the Exclusives’, should form a new colonial aristocracy to act as the equivalent of British Lords.

Many migrants and emancipists (convicts who had served their sentence or been pardoned) strongly opposed this idea. In a society increasingly shaped by egalitarian values, they rejected the creation of a privileged class. Daniel Deniehy, a journalist and early NSW politician, famously mocked Wentworth’s proposal as a “Bunyip Aristocracy”. He argued that the colonies should be built on opportunity, merit and equal political rights rather than inherited status.

Public meetings recorded in newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, show widespread support for constitutions that reflected the wishes of the people. Speakers emphasised that representatives should not pass constitutional measures without first hearing the views of their constituents.

John Gilchrist (a prominent businessman), opened one such public meeting:

At this meeting, Daniel Deniehy gave his famous speech: