Labour History: A Journal of Labour and Social History

State Socialism for Australian Mothers: Andrew Fisher’s Radical Maternalism in its International and Local Contexts

Labour History: A Journal of Labour and Social History (2012), 102, (1), 55–70.

Abstract

In 1912 Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher introduced one of the most radical measures of his government. The Maternity Allowance Act was radical in at least three respects: first, it was ‘socialistic’ in providing a state payment from general revenue to mothers in their capacity as citizens; second, it recognised the legitimacy of the claims of unmarried mothers on the state (unlike in the 1950s and 1960s when single mothers had their babies taken away for adoption); and third, its direct payment to women by the state undermined the traditional patriarchal power exercised by husbands in the family. Australian scholarship has tended to disparage this innovation as a ‘baby bonus’ imposed on women cast as ‘breeders for the body politic’. Closer attention to its international and national contexts, however, suggests that this very popular measure was a response to women’s new found political power.

Access Token
£25.00
READ THIS ARTICLE
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Endnotes

1. Argus, 29August1912, p.6. Google Scholar

2.Quoted byO.T. Ozanne, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates(CPD),House of Representatives, 25September1912, p.3413. Google Scholar

3.Joseph Cook, CPD, House of Representatives, 25September1912, p.3445. OnJethro Brown as a political thinker, seeMichael Roe, Nine Australian Progressives: Vitalism in Bourgeois Social Thought 1890-1960,University of Queensland Press,, 1984, pp.22-56. Google Scholar

4.Department of the Treasury, Annual Report, 1917, quoted inHenry J. Harris, Maternity Benefit Systems in Certain Foreign Countries(Legal Series no. 3),Department of Labor, Government Printing Service,, 1919, p.18. Google Scholar

5.Beverley Kingston notes that the popular term ‘baby bonus’ was an inaccurate description, because the parliamentary debate showed that the expectation was that the payment would enable the provision of care for the mother, rather than increase the birth rate, but attributes the initiative to male ‘guilt’, rather than women’s political power. SeeBeverley Kingston My Wife, My Daughter and Poor Mary Ann,, pp.9-10. Google Scholar

6.On‘baby bonus’and birth rate, seeFrank Crowley, Modern Australia: A Documentary History of Australia Modern Australia 1901-1939, Volume 4,, 1978, p.190;T.H. Kewley, Social Security in Australia 1900-72,Sydney University Press,, 1965(reprinted 1973), pp.103-9. Kewley notes that this was a widespread impression, but that Fisher himself made no such claim, pp.103-9;Richard Kennedy, Australian Welfare History: Critical Essays,, 1982, pp.118, 128;Jill Roe, ‘Women and Welfare Since 1901’inCora V. Baldock andBettina Cass(eds), Women, Social Welfare and the State,Allen and Unwin,, 1988, p.7;Frank Bongiorno, The People’s Party: Victorian Labor and the Radical Tradition, 1875-1914,Melbourne University Press, 1996, p.128. Google Scholar

7.On the significance of racial exclusions, seeMarilyn Lake, ‘A Revolution in the Family: The Challenge and Contradictions of Maternal Citizenship in Australia’, inSeth Koven andSonya Michel(eds), Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States,Routledge,, 1993, pp.378-80;Joy Damousi, Women Come Rally: Communism, Socialism and Gender in Australia 1890-1955,Oxford University Press,, 1994, pp.58-64;Patricia Grimshawet al, Creating a Nation,McPhee Gribble,, 1994, p.206; andMarilyn Lake, Getting Equal: The History of Australian Feminism,Allen and Unwin,, 1999, pp.75-76. Google Scholar

8.Susan Magarey, Passions of the First Wave Feminists,UNSW Press,, 2001, p.184. Google Scholar

9.Roe, ‘Women and Welfare Since 1901’, p.7;Kewley‘s account inSocial Security in Australiarecognises that the payment would be made whether ‘the child was born aliveorwas a viable child’ (my emphasis), p.103. Google Scholar

10.SeeMaternity Allowance Act, no.8of1912. Section 5, clauses1-3: ‘(2) Where the child is not born alive, or dies within twelve hours after a birth, a medical certificate must be furnished certifying that the child was a viable child. (3) Where the Commissioner is satisfied that no medical practitioner was available to attend the case … he may dispense with any medical certificates required by this section’. Google Scholar

11. CPD,House of Representatives, 24September1912, p.3222; see too Senator Givens:‘this is not a bonus for babies, but for maternity’, CPD,, 3October1912, p.3773. Google Scholar

12.Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, 1917, quoted in Harris, Maternity Benefit Systems, p.20. Google Scholar

13. Chicago Daily Tribune, 29May1902. Google Scholar

14.‘Socialistic Experiments in Australia’, Philadelphia Enquirer, 9November1906. On American interest in Australian experiments, seeVictor Clark, The Labor Movement in Australia: A Study in Social Democracy,Henry Holt,, 1906;Diane Kirkby, Alice Henry: The Power of Pen and Voice: The Life of an Australian-American Labor Reformer,Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp.2, 69-70. These were also publicised inW. Pember Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, 2vols,Grant Richards,, 1902. There has as yet however been no research into the international response to the maternity allowance. Google Scholar

15. Idaho Statesman, 19May1909. Google Scholar

16.Harris, Maternity Benefit Systems, p.17. Google Scholar

17. Philadelphia Enquirer, 4August1912. Google Scholar

18. Argus, 2September1912, p.8. Google Scholar

19.Joseph Cook, CPD, House of Representatives, 21August1912, p.2454;Argus, 5September1912;Argus, 3September1912;Argus, 11September1912. Note however that the Church of England’s paperChurch Commonwealthpraised it as a brilliant piece of legislation that gave the allowance as‘of right, and not as of charity’; cited inCPD,House of Representatives, 25September1912, p.3411. Google Scholar

20. Age, 5September1912, p.11. Google Scholar

21.Cook inCPD, House of Representatives, 25September1912, pp.3449-3450; alsoT.E. Bostock, Vice President, Central Council, Employers’ Federation, Sydney Morning Herald, 26September1912, p.7. Google Scholar

22. CPD,House of Representatives, 25September1912, p.3446. Google Scholar

23.Ibid.SeeCharles Pearson, National Life and Character: A Forecast,Macmillan,, 1893. His final chapter was called‘The Decay of Character’. Google Scholar

24.Marilyn Lake, ‘Mission Impossible: How Men Gave Birth to the Australian Nation: Nationalism, Gender and Other Seminal Acts’, Gender and History, vol.4, no.3, Autumn1992, p.305. Google Scholar

25. Argus, 6September1912. Google Scholar

26. Age, 6September1912. Google Scholar

27. Labor Call, 10October1912. Google Scholar

28.Ibid. Google Scholar

29.Ibid. Google Scholar

30.Ibid. Google Scholar

31.Seth Koven andSonya Michel, Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States,Routledge,, 1993;Susan Pedersen, Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914-1945,Cambridge University Press,, 1995;Ann Taylor Allen, Feminism and Motherhood in Western Europe, 1890-1970,Palgrave Macmillan,, 2005. Google Scholar

32.Keir Hardie, The Citizenship of Women: A Plea for Women’s Suffrage,Schlesinger Library,, p.5. Google Scholar

33.Ibid, p.14. Google Scholar

34.Quoted by AmericanWilliam Hard and cited bySonya Michel, ‘The Limits of Maternalism: Policies Toward American Wage-Earning Mothers during the Progressive Era’, inKoven andMichel, Mothers of a New World, p.298. Google Scholar

35.Ibid. Google Scholar

36.Henry D. Harben, The Endowment of Motherhood,Fabian Tracts,, 1910. Google Scholar

37. Labor Call, 22September1910. Google Scholar

38.Senator Givens, CPD,, 4October1912, p.3871. Google Scholar

39. Socialist, 19July1908;Marilyn Lake, ‘The Independence of Women and the Brotherhood of Man’, Labour History, no.63, November1992, p.7;Joy Damousi, Women Come Rally, p.83. Google Scholar

40. Socialist, 17July1908. Google Scholar

41.Frank Bongiorno, The People’s Party, pp.124-34. Google Scholar

42.Quoted inStuart Macintyre, The Succeeding Age: Oxford History of Australia, Volume 4,Oxford University Press, 1986, p.92. Google Scholar

43. Woman Voter, 9October1912, inMarilyn Lake andKatie Holmes(eds), Freedom Bound II: Documents on Women in Modern Australia,Allen and Unwin,, 1995, p.7. Google Scholar

44.Pearson, National Life and Character, pp.18, 23. Google Scholar

45.Ibid., pp.227-58. Google Scholar

46.Joseph Cook, CPD, House of Representatives, 25September1912, p.3445. Google Scholar

47.Ibid. Google Scholar

48. The Irish World and American Industrial Liberator, 26December1903. Google Scholar

49.Judith Smart, ‘Eva Hughes: Militant Conservative’, inMarilyn Lake andFarley Kelly(eds), Double Time: Women in Victoria, 150 Years,Penguin,, 1985, p.181;Marian Quartly, ‘Defending “the Purity of Home Life” against Socialism: The Founding Years of the Australian Women’s National League’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol.50, no.2, 2004, p.183. Google Scholar

50.Maud Wood Park, Around the World, Maud Wood Park Papers, M-133,Schlesinger Library,. Google Scholar

51.Ibid., pp.12-13. Google Scholar

52.Jessie Ackermann, Australia from a Woman’s Point of View,Cassell and Company,, 1913[1981], pp.166-68. Google Scholar

53. New York Times, 16February1902. Google Scholar

54.Josephine K. Henry, ‘800,000 Women are Enfranchised’, Bluegrass Blade(fromCommercial Tribune), 20July1902. Google Scholar

55. Washington Times, 16February1902. Google Scholar

56.Quoted inAlice Stone Blackwell, Equal Suffrage in New Zealand, Equal Suffrage Leaflet published by theWoman’s Journal,, January1898, p.1. Google Scholar

57.R.E. Macnaghton, ‘Women’s Vote in Australia’, Canadian Magazine, June1907, reprinted asPolitical Equality Seriesvol.111, no.2, National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA), NAWSA papers,Schlesinger Library,. Google Scholar

58. Washington Post, 17January1904. Google Scholar

59. Washington Post, 11August1904. Google Scholar

60. New York Times, 2March1902. Google Scholar

61. Washington Times, 16February1902. Google Scholar

62. Sun(), 9February1903. Google Scholar

63. New York Times, 17December1903. Google Scholar

64.Julia Holder ‘Equal Suffrage in Australia’, Independent, 9June1904, reprinted inPolitical Equality Series, vol.1, no.6,NAWSA, NAWSA papers, Schlesinger Library,. Google Scholar

65.David Day, Andrew Fisher: Prime Minister of Australia,HarperCollins,, 2008, pp.126, 190-1. Google Scholar

66.Quoted inBaltimore American, 10August1904. Google Scholar

67.Kirkby, Alice Henry, p.70. Google Scholar

68. Australian Year Book,Australian Bureau of Statistics,, 1912, p.953. Google Scholar

69.Day, Andrew Fisher, pp.190-91. Google Scholar

70.See, for example, reports inAge, 12, 13April1910. Google Scholar

71.Kathryn Kish Sklar ‘The Historical Foundations of Women’s Power in the Historical Creation of the American Welfare State, 1830-1930’, inKoven andMichel, Mothers of a New World, p.46. Google Scholar

72.Sydney Sampson, CPD,House of Representatives, 25September1912, pp.3418-19. Google Scholar

73.On‘the Socialistic idea’, seeJoseph Cook, CPD,House of Representatives, 25September1912, pp.3449-50. Google Scholar

74.E.A. Roberts, CPD,House of Representatives, 25September1912, p.3455. Google Scholar

75.Vida Goldstein, ‘Socialism of Today: An Australian View’, The Nineteenth Century and After, September1907, pp.406-16. Google Scholar

76. Labor Call, 24October1912, p.2. Google Scholar

77.See, for example, CPD,House of Representatives, 24September1912, pp.3334-36; and25September1912, p.3412. Google Scholar

78. Age, 25September1912. Google Scholar

79.Smart, ‘Eva Hughes’, pp.181-82. Google Scholar

80.Harris, Maternity Benefit Systems, p.19. Google Scholar

81. Labor Call, 26June1919. Google Scholar

82. Labor Call, 21February1922. Google Scholar

83.Cited inMuriel Heagney, Labor Women’s Contribution to Human Welfare: Effective National Organisation, Heagney papers, State Library of Victoria, MS 9106, Box 1162/6. Google Scholar

84. Dawn, 14April1923. See full report inLake, Getting Equal, p.79. Google Scholar

85.Muriel Heagney ‘Report of Investigation into the Position of the Unmarried Mother’, Labor Call, 26April1923;Muriel Heagney, ‘Has the Maternity Allowance failed?’, Labor Call, 22May1924. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Details

Author details

Lake, Marilyn