In 1919 the keen eyed political observer Charles Bernays made a comment that expressed the commonly held perception that the manufacturing industries of Queensland were ‘well nigh beneath contempt'.1 He might well have also been alluding to popular attitudes about urbanisation and urban development in Queensland. Bernays' comment reflected the political stigma associated with manufacturing and urbanisation that remained largely unchallenged in Queensland until at least the late 1960s. Queensland, unlike the other eastern states, experienced a unique developmental process where urbanisation was accompanied by significant decentralisation. The vast geography and decentralised nature of Queensland necessitated localised manufacturing activity to service regional urban consumer markets and the rapidly expanding primary exports sector. The political, economic and geographic factors that limited urbanisation in Queensland's decentralised economy, also reduced the potential for the expansion of its secondary industries. Nevertheless, the political and social marginalisation of the manufacturing sector belies its true contribution to the state's economic development. The political and social division between urban and rural development was founded upon an ideological preference for an agrarian society as clearly demonstrated by the constant populist political drive for rural development and closer settlement. The rural lifestyle was presented as morally and socially superior to the industrial evils associated with the urban existence, despite the demographic evidence of a preference for the urban life. Historically the image of the urban has been much maligned in Queensland despite its fundamentally important contribution to the economic development of the state.

The object of this paper is to discuss, in broad terms, the relationship between demographic patterns of development and the growth of secondary industries in Queensland between 1860 and 1930.2 Some clarification of the concepts discussed here would be instructive at this point. A distinction is made between urbanisation and urban growth, they may be identified together or separately but are not interchangeable. Urbanisation refers to the process where the proportion of people residing in urban locations of a particular spatial division (i.e. Queensland) rises while the proportion living in rural locations decreases. Urban growth refers to the increase in the number of people living in urban locations but where the proportion overall does not change, that is, where urban and rural growth occurs simultaneously. These demographic patterns, together referred to as urban intensification, were experienced in Queensland at various times. For example, between 1891-1933 a high degree of urbanisation was generally experienced in the south whereas urban growth was outpaced by rural growth in Central Queensland. The term manufacturing is used here in its broadest sense to categorise economic activity that involves the transformation of substances into new products whether by hand or with the assistance of power, technology and more advanced systems of labour organisation.3

Urbanisation has many definitions depending upon one's perspective and there are many factors, economic, spatial, demographic, political, cultural and social, that influence its manifestations. Geographer Tisdale Eldridge, defines urbanisation as ‘a process of population concentration. It proceeds in two ways: the multiplication of points of concentration and the increase in size of individual concentrations'.4 The economics of urbanisation are mostly concerned with the division of labour and the city.

'Cities and urban areas are essentially clusters of non-agricultural production. Cities are relatively dense concentrations of labour and non-land capital.[These largely residential] 'clusters group around a centre, in effect a market, a place where goods and services are exchanged. This implies commerce (retail, wholesale, finance) and manufacturing.Goods from elsewhere are also shipped to this point, and the market may also serve as a collection point for the transportation of goods outside the city or the city region'.5

The demographic elements of urbanisation 'include the process of population concentration in towns and cities, a process that is reinforced by internal and international migration'. Related to this is population density, a criteria used to classify an urban formation. In terms of spatial relationships, urbanisation refers to the ‘physical spread of cities and towns into surrounding rural, or vacant areas... It involves change in morphology [form and structure] of the landscape, including the transformation of the cultural landscape'. The ‘social processes associated with urbanisation are complex and involve both spatial and aspatial aspects'. In a spatial context issues such as the rise and decline of communities over time are important. In terms of aspatial issues it is the association between urbanisation and shifts in value systems, social attitudes, political expressions, and lifestyles that are of interest.6

As we have seen urbanisation encompasses a diverse range of attributes that influences social formation and location of ‘physical assets'. Attributing primacy to an isolated causal factor is problematic. This study suggests, nonetheless, that economic, geographic, political, and ideological influences have been dominant in the process of urbanisation in Queensland.7 The alienation and exploitation of the land has been the central characteristic in shaping historical action in Queensland. Out of this historic process arises the urban paradox; a broad political desire to conquer and settle the empty continent accompanied by a corresponding process of urban intensification, decentralisation, and growth. The timing of Australia's development during the industrial revolution created the demand for the successful exploitation of antipodean resources. Indeed, the Australian experience of economic development and urbanisation must be understood within the context of the globalization of economic relations.8

As urban historian Sean Glynn has suggested of Australia's colonisation, the economic foundation of urbanisation in Queensland was derived initially from the suitability of its location for the provision of prison services. The Moreton Bay penal settlement was relocated in 1825 from its initial site at Redcliffe (on the northern arm of Moreton Bay)to a superior location on the northern bank of the Brisbane River at the site of present day North Quay in the Brisbane CBD.9 Access to the settlement was difficult and its morphology restricted its early growth potential. However, the Brisbane site was not chosen for its advantages as a commercial centre, rather, its location was chosen for its advantages as an isolated gaol.10 The uniqueness of the Moreton Bay settlement was its near total economic and social isolation from the influences of free commerce and pastoral development. Nevertheless, from this base Brisbane Town evolved as the administrative hub and transhipment node for the Brisbane valley hinterland and the eastern Darling Downs. It was not until the late 1830s and early 1840s that the hinterland began to develop, due to movements into the region from the south, to the point where Brisbane and Limestone Hill (Ipswich) became necessary conduits for the trade of rural commodities. In fact Moreton Bay was effectively quarantined from free settlers until about 1840, when increasing pressure from Darling Downs pastoralists for access to the ports at Brisbane and Limestone Hill forced the abandonment of these restrictions.11 The developmental patterns that evolved over the ensuing decades were conditioned by the complex interaction between individual and cooperative material desires and ideologies, access to capital and markets, the geomorphology and spatial distribution of natural resources, and climatic conditions.

Urbanisation and the economic geography of settlement 1860-1890s:

Queensland's decentralised character is due principally, of course, to it's unique geography. Moreover, other indigenous and exogenous factors, such as the patterns of Australian and World economic development and trade,12 the type and spatial distribution of its natural resources, Brisbane's rather eccentric location in the extreme south east, and the relative lateness of Queensland's separation from New South Wales in 1859, all contributed to its unique economic geography. Economic activity and settlement patterns were conditioned by the long mostly shallow coastline with a narrow coastal strip cut off from the broad plains of the interior by the rough terrain of the Great Dividing Range. The colony was so large that the growth of the metropolis, and its numerous feeder towns concentrated in the south-east, did not stop the development of large and small urban clusters in the centre and the north.13 Queensland's economic geography therefore ensured that the flow of commodities from its expanding and contracting economic frontiers, were not funnelled predominantly through the metropolis. The spatial diversity of Queensland's natural resources guaranteed the development of ports further north of Brisbane, such as Maryborough, Bundaberg, Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay, Bowen, Townsville, Cairns, Port Douglas and Cooktown. Two of these ports, Rockhampton and Townsville, eventually dominated trade with their hinterlands and became the defacto capitals of Central and North Queensland respectively.14 This pattern of decentralisation also meant that manufacturing activity could be found throughout the colony. The south-east did, however, dominate Queensland's economy reflecting its greater population density and the relative economic and political maturity of the region.15 The economic and social formation of these towns was a very dynamic process, all as it were, starting from scratch. Ipswich, favoured by pastoralists and the MacAlister government (1866-1874) battled with Brisbane for urban supremacy, the former having matched Brisbane's growth up until 1867. Maryborough, Gympie and Bundaberg all challenged for the Wide Bay region. On the Darling Downs, Toowoomba tussled with nearby Warwick, where the latter outpaced Toowoomba until the 1860s. Ultimately Toowoomba succeeded as the major pastoral, agricultural and engineering service centre and by 1890 it accounted for twenty per cent of the population on the Darling Downs.16 In the centre Port Curtis/Gladstone fought a losing battle with Rockhampton, further to the north it was Bowen versus Townsville, and Cooktown, Port Douglas and Cairns vied with each other for trade in the far north.

The relationship between economic activity and geography is a key factor in understanding the nature of economic development and social formation in Queensland. The ports, and urban clusters in their hinterlands, acted as bridgeheads and conduits in a two way flow of commodity exports and imported labour and manufactures. The rise and decline of numerous urban clusters have hinged upon the viability of exploiting natural resources in their respective districts.17 Climatic and market factors were also crucial to settlement patterns on the ‘frontier'. Movements into new regions and the more intensive exploitation of settled districts, relied upon ‘good' seasons and high commodity prices, both of which fluctuated wildly along with the advance or retreat of the frontier. The expansion of the frontier during good seasons lead to a distortion in the recognition of what represented the climatic norms. The naturally dry prevailing conditions were considered an aberration and this misconception was to significantly undermine the ultimate viability of closer settlement agriculture. The failure of closer settlement schemes in many areas happened because the farm lots were too small, markets undeveloped, transportation difficult and costly, and most importantly, through inappropriate agricultural practices, fragile soils and water resources were stressed well beyond their natural capacity.18

The mass immigration to Queensland during the nineteenth century was largely the result of the new demands associated with the economic and social changes driven by the industrial revolution. Queensland gained expanding European export markets for its pastoral commodities and required ever increasing inputs of human and financial capital to exploit these opportunities. This market expansion and demand for labour underwrote the growth in Queensland's population from 28,000 in 1860 to in excess of half a million by the turn of the century.19 The trend in population growth was strong prior to 1890, while net immigration trends fluctuated along with the performance of the economy and prevailing climatic conditions; the latter two being closely linked. Queensland's population growth slowed somewhat in the late 1860s before strengthening through to 1880. During 1880-1881 the population stagnated prior to a surge in the growth trend that ended abruptly in 1891. The boom in population growth during the mid-1880s included a corresponding increase in net immigration. The urban and rural distribution of Queensland's population during the nineteenth century is difficult to assess accurately. These difficulties are due to changes in statistical methodologies over time (changes in the municipalities and boundaries included) and the exclusion, for example, of large mining camps from urban totals. However, it is estimated that the proportion of the population residing in urban areas ranged between forty-seven and sixty-one per cent between 1860 and 1891.20 The bulk of this urbanisation was experienced in Brisbane, Maryborough, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Rockhampton, Townsville, Warwick, Gympie, Bundaberg and Mackay. Brisbane was not, however, the location for the majority of the urban expansion of the 1860s and 1870s, despite its share of the population catapulting from about 9000 in 1860 to over 125,000 by the late 1890s. The urbanisation in the metropolis did ‘take off' in the 1880s, however this trend was temporary, and was reversed in the 1890s.21

Thanks in part to the politically directed and geographically independent railway networks that developed in the south, centre and north,22 much of the colony's early urban intensification took place in the regional centres such as Ipswich, Toowoomba, Rockhampton, and later at Townsville. These railway networks were very successful in the promotion of the pastoral sector, but their impact on closer settlement was more marginal. Perhaps the most significant impact of railway development was that it encouraged the growth of urban clusters at the points of intersection for assembly and distribution of commodities in the hinterlands and at their coastal terminals. This was to have important implications in fostering the development of the tertiary and manufacturing sectors. While the focus of this paper is on the latter it must be said that the interaction between urbanisation and the growth of the tertiary sector was perhaps more significant and deserves much closer historical investigation.23

Manufacturing and the political economy 1860-1890s:

The connection between urbanisation and manufacturing arises from the logic that it is more efficient for an integration of factors of production (land, labour, capital, and enterprise) to occurr at points where the access, transportation and distribution of inputs and outputs readily intersect.24 If indeed, as Noel Butlin contended, 'Australia's economic development is mainly the story of urbanisation', the story for Queensland is not as straight forward.25 John Laverty has questioned the application of Butlin's urbanisation thesis to Queensland, arguing that rural development was more important to the growth of manufacturing sector than urbanisation.26 Both were important. It is fair to say that Queensland's manufacturing base was not as sophisticated or developed as those of the southern colonies. The ‘laggard' thesis expressed by Laverty and others, does tend, however, to over emphasise Queensland's manufacturing deficiencies and to understate its strengths.27 Indeed, Laverty does acknowledge that the rate of industrial growth in Queensland in the nineteenth century was quite rapid.28 In one sense it is the urbanisation that occurred elsewhere in Australia and in Europe that also directed the form and function of Queensland's manufacturing sector.

Queensland's economic development is a tale of the complex interaction of distant export markets, a politically powerful pastoral elite, rural isolation and intensification, decentralisation, and varying degrees of urban growth and urbanisation. Urbanisation occurred during the 1860s and the early 1870s, followed by rural expansion and urban growth before the 1880s development boom when a strong rend in urbanisation re-emerged.29 The centralisation of production in the metropolis was not as pronounced here as it was in the southern states, nor did manufacturing grow to dominate the economy. The centripetal forces of the metropolis were counter-balanced by the centrifugal forces of distant markets, pastoral production, and rural settlement, leading to distinct economic and demographic divisions in the south, centre and north. As populations began to develop in the south-east, on the Darling Downs, and in the hinterlands of Rockhampton and Townsville during the second half of the nineteenth century, the demand for local manufacturing industries grew. There was a continuous market for locally manufactured essential items, these goods included basic food and drink, soap, clothing, leather goods, building materials, tools, waggons, barrels, boxes and so on. The market for non-essential items, such as imported foodstuffs, textiles, manchester, cutlery, specialised machinery, chemicals, etc., was at first generally denied to local manufacturers. Factors that contributed to the delay in development of non-essential goods manufacture in Queensland included, inter-colonial and overseas competition, a lack of access to capital for investment,30 the high cost of materials and labour, difficulties in achieving economies of scale,31 and a cultural preference for imported items. Growth eventually occurred in the ‘non-essential' sector as the economy expanded and local products were adopted or adapted to suit local conditions and markets. Eventually, with the growth in population densities, these markets would reach a point of critical mass when it became viable to establish non-essential goods manufacturing enterprises.32

Throughout the nineteenth century the manufacturing sector struggled to develop beneath the shadow of a pastoral sector that clearly dominated Queensland's economy. Pastoral development was a consistent priority of all Queensland governments.While colonial governments became increasingly active in the affairs of the pastoral and agricultural sectors, in which most parliamentarians were intimately involved, (promoting developmental railways, pastoral expansion, and ultimately closer settlement agriculture), manufacturing was mostly left to its own devices.33 The state's development program was reliant upon the price of wool, and it was while wool prices rallied during the 1870s and early 1880s that the majority of Queensland's public debt in the nineteenth century was created. When the wool market collapsed in the late 1880s, the Queensland government attempted to prop-up rural investment via land sales associated with closer settlement schemes.34 Historian Glen Lewis has described this process of political economy the ‘Trinity of Hope' (land, immigration, and developmental railways). From separation through to the mid-1880s the trinity went unquestioned as the primary means of promoting economic development that, at the same time, discouraged urbanisation and industrialisation. By the turn of the century, however, it had becoming clear, even to the political promoters of this strategy, that the trinity had failed in its task of socially engineering greater rurality and that it was also fiscally unsustainable.35

The government's apathy, notwithstanding, there were some measures taken to encourage selected manufacturing activities. Several governments sought to encourage meat processing and exports and also offered financial and regulatory assistance to the sugar industry for the establishment of cooperative controlled central sugar crushing mills.36 Further more, two legislative measures were adopted in 1869 in the hope of fostering textile production in Queensland. However, both of the Acts were failed in their objectives.37 Despite the lack of government support, the composition and distribution of secondary industries had achieved reasonable levels of development in terms of scope, scale and decentralisation, if not in overall sophistication and diversity, by the mid-1870s. The statistics of the 1860s are unreliable, however, by 1875 there were 578 factories officially recorded. By the end of the 1880s this number had more than doubled and reached over 2600 in 1899. Production and employment figures are only available from the early 1890s and these show that employment increased from 12,209 to 23,879 between 1892-1899. The value of output also increased, expanding from £4.6 million [m] in 1895 to £8.9m in 1899.38 In terms of the sectoral composition of secondary industries the fabricating enterprises (compared to processing)39 accounted for sixty-six to seventy-three per cent of all factories between 1875 and 1895.40 During the 1870s and 1880s the growth of the sugar industry and railway construction promoted expansion in the metals and engineering sectors, especially in the regional urban centres of Maryborough, Bundaberg, Mackay, Ipswich and Toowoomba. The growth in domestic and export demand for meat products promoted a general expansion in the number and scale of operations of meat works and associated processing industries. The mining sector also had a positive impact on these centres and other inland and coastal towns, such as Gympie, Rockhampton, Townsville, Irvinebank, Herberton, Cooktown and Cairns, during the later decades of the nineteenth century.41 Moreover, growth in urban populations, and the trend toward higher wages and levels of consumption, created new and expanding forces of demand for local and imported manufactures.

Urbanisation and manufacturing 1890-1930:

The 1890s were a critical and pivotal decade for the economic development of Queensland. The manufacturing sector performed well and was the stand out success of the decade despite the bitter depression of 1891-1893. The depression was not isolated to Queensland, its impact was widely felt across Australian and, particularly, in Europe. The depression was largely caused by financial speculation and over-production in Europe, driving down commodity prices and therefore reducing export incomes in Australia, to the extent that the levels of public debt became temporarily unserviceable. The ensuing credit squeeze effectively cut off the economic fuel supply to much of Queensland's economy.42 The extent of the impact of the depression, and the later droughts and floods, on Queensland's development can be seen in the reduction of immigration and population growth. The financial crisis also stymied assisted immigration and the pre-1890s population growth trend. Net immigration decreased markedly during 1891-1892 and stagnated for the rest of the decade. Queensland actually suffered net migration losses between 1900 and 1905.43 Indeed, Queensland's mean population decreased from 508,864 to 490,325 between 1899-1900, and did not recover its 1899 level until after 1902. By 1910 Queensland's mean population was 592,201, increasing to almost three-quarters of a million in 1920, and to 940,455 by 1930.44

After the tumultuous economic changes of the early 1890s, Queensland's economy recovered more quickly than the other colonies. Indeed the unique characteristics of Queensland's decentralised rural-urban structure underpinned the colony's recovery, as its workforce was less reliant upon large scale manufacturing centred in the metropolis. Federation of the colonies in 1901 had little direct influence on the urban-rural demographics of Queensland. The trend in population growth slowed somewhat from 1899-1903, however this was due mainly to the adverse economic impact of the long drought during these years. Census data45 indicates that from the mid-1890s Queensland's workforce grew faster than the Australian average in percentage terms. Apart from transport and communications, Queensland's urban workforce also grew more quickly in percentage terms than the rest of the states. Nevertheless, the manufacturing workforce still lagged proportionally behind the Australian average. However in terms of the overall composition of Queensland's workforce (as compared to the Australian average), occupations linked to primary production accounted for thirty-four per cent of the workforce while the Australian average was twenty-six per cent by 1921. Urban workers accounted for fifty-seven per cent in Queensland compared to the sixty-four per cent Australian average in 1921. Those working in Queensland classified as having urban occupations accounted for over fifty-three per cent and rural almost forty-seven per cent.46 This indicates that Queensland was more heavily reliant upon its primary industries and that it's population was less urbanised than the Australian average. So despite the relative growth in the urban workforce compared to the other sectors, the urban workforce still lagged proportionally behind the Australian average.47 Nevertheless, in terms of non-rural occupational classifications irrespective of urban or rural location, the statistics for Queensland demonstrate a clear dominance of non-rural employment. That is, the vast majority of employees and employers were involved in occupations other than those directly engaged in primary production. For example the combined non-rural workforce as a percentage of the total workforce fluctuated between sixty-eight and seventy-four per cent from 1881 to 1933.48 Moreover, Brisbane did not dominate the state in terms of its overall percentage of the population or its share of immigrants. This was because Queensland had several ports of disembarkation for immigrants, principally Maryborough, Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns. The majority may not have made the metropolis their home but they lived and worked in urban or semi-urban environments nonetheless.

The high rate of non-rural employment reflects the reality that manufacturing, and particularly the tertiary sector, were key components of Queensland's economy. Historians have generally assumed that Queensland's manufacturing sector was relatively primitive and underdeveloped; a rather laggardly cousin compared to its southern competitors. Indeed, federation has often been blamed for seriously retarding Queensland's manufacturing sector in the early twentieth century, due to the introduction of cheaper imports from interstate following the dismantling of colonial tariff barriers.49 Some secondary industries suffered but generally they were already of suspect viability prior to Federation.50 Other stronger industries profited from the competition and increased market share and, in some cases, began exporting goods interstate. The troubles that beset the manufacturing sector in the early 1900s can, to a larger degree, be attributed to the drought induced depression rather than primarily to the negative economic impact of federation per se.51 In fact a decline in factory numbers began to occur prior to federation. In 1899 the Statistics of Queensland [SQ] indicate there were 2610 factories, employing 28,800 workers, operating in Queensland. This number declined to around 2100 between 1900-1901, stabilised between 1900-2000 factories until 1907 prior to a slump down to a low of 1420 factories, employing 20,000 workers, by 1909. It was not until 1930 that the SQ shows the number of factories recovering their 1901 level.52 These figures certainly suggest stagnation in the manufacturing sector. While there were fewer factories in operation by 1930 than there were in 1901, keeping mind there was a recession experienced in Queensland from 1927, these factories actually employed over 40,000 workers compared to the 26,000 of 1901. This represents an increase of fifty-six per cent between 1900-1930.53 The larger factories with fifty-one or more employees improved somewhat, the middle range ones of eleven to fifty stagnated, while the smaller factories grew steadily in number throughout.54 The production figures also indicate there was an increase in output and productivity as the value of production rose steadily, except for the worst of the drought affected years. In 1901 manufacturing output was valued at £8.9m, by 1909 this had increased to £12.7m, tripling to £39.8m by 1920, and peaking at £47.6m in 1928.55 The gross value of output actually increased by over 500 per cent during this period, despite the apparent stagnation in factory numbers. In this area Queensland's performance was second only to New South Wales between federation and the Second World War.56 Moreover, an examination of the relative output values of the various industry sectors in Queensland over the period shows that manufacturing consistently out-performed every sector, except the pastoral industry, and was more valuable than agriculture and mining combined.57 When one considers the combination of factory numbers, workers employed, and value of output and production, the performance of the sector is not as lacklustre as it is generally perceived.

However, this story is not yet complete. Another problem that masks manufacturing's contribution involves other statistical anomalies. A close examination the Factories and Shops Reports 58 [F&SR] provides an alternative range of statistics that suggest there were many more factories operating in Queensland than is revealed in the SQ. In 1909, for example, the F&SR details statistical returns from almost 1900 factories (the SQ figure is 1420), by 1920 this had grown to 3300, and by 1930 it stood above 4400 (more than double the SQ figure of 2104).59 The F&SR records a higher number because those figures included all registered factories regardless of the number employed or motive power used. The SQ, on the other hand, only included factories with two (and then four from 1908) or more employees using some form of mechanical power. However, even the F&SR tends to short-change the manufacturing sector as they reveal only those factories registered in the various districts as declared under the Factories and Shops Acts. Large areas were not therefore included, and it has been estimated that the factories not counted by the official census would have amounted to approximately ten per cent of the official figure; a not insignificant discrepancy.60 On balance, the statistics indicate that the manufacturing sector performed reasonably well between 1890 and the 1920s. In terms of the centralisation of production, the ratio of factories to head of population in Brisbane was only slightly ahead of its share of the population. Indeed, between seventy-five and sixty per cent of factories were located outside of the metropolitan area.61 The uniqueness of the growth in manufacturing production in Queensland was its simultaneous linkage to urban intensification, rural development, and primary production. These linkages encouraged the consolidation of the larger enterprises in the metropolis, and also enabled smaller and larger operations to exist in distant locales where they enjoyed a degree of immunity from southern competition. This was quite an achievement when one considers the lack of interest and assistance given by government, and the difficult trading conditions the sector had to contend with.

Manufacturing and the political economy of development:

Glen Lewis has argued that the allure of industrialisation and manufacturing did not generally ‘impress' Queenslanders. This is especially true of the state's political leaders. A rural development bias infused the political economy of Queensland for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. All Queensland governments, regardless of their political persuasion, adopted overtly ruralist policies only differing in their emphasis on pastoral or agricultural development.62 After the Great War, while the other states and the Commonwealth were pro-active in fostering secondary industries, the Labor government in Queensland adopted a strategy of patronage towards primary producers. Labor successfully courted the farmers' vote, away from the Liberals, thanks largely to government efforts encouraging cooperative dairy production, commodity pooling, price fixing, and producer controlled marketing of primary produce. This political economic strategy was avowedly anti-urban; as one Nationalist Party critic argued in the late 1930s, rural development was accompanied by the simultaneous suppression of ‘the aggregation of large populations in cities and towns.'63

While Queensland governments virtually ignored the manufacturing sector, there is evidence to suggest there was an embryonic shift towards state support for the development of secondary industries during the Great War. In 1917 Labor Premier T.J. Ryan proposed the establishment of a State Iron and Steel Works that was intended to promote rural infrastructure development and the greater industrialisation in Queensland.64 During the war it became apparent to the Labor cabinet that the iron industry was of critical strategic importance and that it also symbol of economic progress and industrial maturity. In a sense the Labor cabinet were being influenced by the broader logic of modernity associated with twentieth century industrial capitalism, albeit tempered by their unique brand of agrarian socialist ideology. A site for the steelworks was eventually chosen at Bowen and it was estimated the works would cost £2.4 million to construct.65 The choice of Bowen over a superior site in Brisbane suggests that whereas the North Queensland dominated cabinet were then tacit supporters of industrialisation, they were not prepared to boost the industrialisation and urbanisation of the southern capital at the expense of decentralisation and northern development. Ryan and Theodore were genuinely committed to the project and its demise in 1923, after six years of planning, was almost entirely due to financial restrictions associated with the London loans embargo.66

If the state steelworks was a victim of this funding crisis, so too were the embryonic plans of the Theodore government to assist the development of Queensland's secondary industries. However, the level of Labor's commitment to industrial development can not be overstated. The agrarian development ethos would have remained intact regardless of the success, or otherwise, of a steel industry in Queensland.67 Indeed, during the 1920s the Labor government held fast to the electoral certainties of supporting the rural vote and the manufacturing sector was again largely left to fend for itself. It is nonetheless historically significant that the overtly ruralist Labor government was moving towards state support for, and involvement in, the secondary industries sector from late in its first term in office. Another attempt was made at addressing Queensland's lack of sophistication in manufacturing in the late 1920s. A conservative government under the Premiership of A.E. Moore passed the Industries Assistance Act 1929 which was intended to foster the establishment of new secondary industries with an offer of practical and financial assistance from government. The scheme's laudable intent was unfortunately not matched by its practical application and any future potential it might have had was cut short by the Great Depression.68 The die was cast in the loans crisis of the early 1920s, and later by the depression. The opportunity of heavy industrialisation was lost, and the primacy of rural development would retain its hegemony in the political economy until the 1960s.

The ideology of development:

The political divide between the urban and rural economies was driven by a deep seated ideology that openly opposed urbanisation and industrialisation. In the popular mind and populist politics of Queensland, the city and its modern problems (overcrowding, social unrest, noise, pollution etc) was unfavourably compared to the wholesome and morally superior rural lifestyle. Ideology is, of course, difficult to quantify, but it can be clearly interpreted within the discourse of public debate and political economy in the press, the legislative language of parliamentary debate and political policy. Historically the full force of developmental policy in Queensland was directed primarily towards rural intensification, in part to check the spread of urbanisation and the perceived social and moral evils that attended it.69 This was perhaps in part due to the personal experiences and social memory of the tens of thousands of migrants who had left the United Kingdom and Europe for an new life in Queensland. This mass migration occurred in the wake of the great social and economic upheavals associated with the acceleration of the industrial revolution from the 1850s. A new vast and distant landscape offered the potential fulfilment of the yeomanry ideal in the manner expressed by the populist utopians such Edward Wakefield, Henry George and William Lane. This popular antipodean imagery of a new world fit for the new agriculturalists, was championed over the evils and degradation of the urban, and found its most potent political expression in Queensland.70 The voices advocating industrialisation were few and, until after the first world war, they were largely drowned out by, what Queensland historian W. Ross Johnston succinctly described as, the ‘call of the land'.71

The yeomanry ideal shared popularity across the political spectrum. The working class saw it as a mode with which to counter the social, political and economic power of the squattocracy. The middle class liberals for similar reasons and also to counter the growth in radical socialist ideals among the working class. The pastoralists did not generally oppose it either, as closer settlement provided them with a permanent and compliant workforce (as opposed to the transitory and militant one they usually had to contend with) and it also increased the value of their freehold lands. Nevertheless the development of urban concentrations in Queensland, especially in the south-east, continued apace despite the vast sums thrown at railways, assisted immigration and closer settlement schemes. Regardless of its overtly ruralist identity Queensland was, nonetheless, as intensely urbanised and decentralised as it was agrarian. Here the contradiction is compelling. Nowhere was the political drive for rural development so strong, and the reluctance of immigrants and urbanites to partake in closer settlement so contradictory. Successive Queensland governments worked against the grain and continued to promote rural development, despite the fact they could not induce nearly enough people to take up a new life on land.

The relationship between urbanisation and the development of manufacturing in Queensland is not as clear cut as it was for the southern states. Queensland's economic and demographic form, and its self image, has been shaped by its late development, its vast and demanding geography, the strong links between the source of most of Queensland's capital investment and its export markets, and the particularly strong influence of the ruralist ideology that infused its political economy and social identity. The various factors that restricted urbanisation did tend to limit the expansion of secondary industries. The centralisation of production was not as apparent in Queensland, its manufacturing sector was more decentralised, less sophisticated and generally on a smaller scale. Queensland's urban workforce were more reliant upon the primary and tertiary sectors, and its factories on the processing of primary produce. The machinations of the political economy were consistently in favour of rural development and this deprived the urban clusters of much needed public and private investment in infrastructure and services. Governments offered little by way of encouragement to secondary industries, and when they did, it was usually too little or too late. The financial services sector all but ignored the manufacturing sector. Capital investment coming primarily from earnings as profit reinvested in enterprises therefore placing unnecessary limitations upon growth in this sector. The benefits of industrialisation, and the urban lifestyle that accompanied it, were not seriously considered within the political economy until the economic and social implications of the Great War shook some from their agrarian slumber. The political economic power of the pastoral interests forestalled the progress towards outright industrialisation in the early 1920s, and the Labor government abandoned its uneasy industrial embrace for the more familiar rural landscape. In the final analysis it is argued that urbanisation and urban growth has been vitally important to the development of secondary industries, and that manufacturing was of critical importance to the economic development of the state as a whole. Manufacturing, like urbanisation and industrialisation, may have been generally considered ‘well nigh beneath contempt' in Queensland. Nevertheless, it is not without a little irony, that it was the new and ever growing consumer demands and market forces of global urbanisation that actually underpinned the economic and social development of Queensland.

Return to top of page!

ENDNOTES

[Back]1.C.A. Bernays, Queensland Politics During Sixty (1859-1919) Years (Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer, 1919), p. 383.

[Back]2. The arguments presented here are based upon the extensive consultation of primary and secondary sources undertaken as part of my doctoral research into the relationship between economic development and the dynamics of social formation and politics in Queensland between 1900 and 1930.

[Back]3.J.C.R. Camm & P.G. Irwin, Space, People, Place: economic and settlement geography (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1986), p. 209.

[Back]4. D.U. Cloher, 'A perspective on Australian urbanisation', in J.M. Powell & M. Williams, eds., Australian Space, Australian Time (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1975), p. 106.

[Back]5. I.H. Burnley, The Australian Urban System: Growth, Change and Differentiation (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1980), p. 7.

[Back]6. Burnley, Australian Urban System, p. 8.

[Back]7. Sean Glynn, Urbanisation in Australian History 1788-1900 (Melbourne: Nelson, 1975), pp. 13-4.

[Back]8. M. Williams, ‘More and Smaller is Better: Australian Rural Settlement 1788-1914', in Powell & Williams, eds., Australian Space, pp. 61-3. & M.I. Logan, J.S. Whitelaw, & J. McKay, Urbanisation: the Australian Experience (Melbourne: Shillington House, 1981), p. 23.

[Back]9. J.J. Knight, In the Early Days: History and Incident of Pioneer Queensland (Brisbane: Sapsford, 1895), p. 16. & Ross Fitzgerald, A History of Queensland from the Dreaming to 1915 (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1986), p. 74.

[Back]10. Peter Wood, ‘Site and Pre-War Growth', in Peter Wood & Malcolm Philpott, eds., Brisbane and its River: 43rd ANZAAS Congress, Brisbane May 24-28, 1971 (Brisbane: Australia & New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, 1971), p. 9.

[Back]11. Fitzgerald, From the Dreaming, p. 90 & G.J.R. Linge, Industrial Awakening: A Geography of Australian Manufacturing 1788 to 1890 (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1979), p. 154.

[Back]12. For closer analyses of the globalisation of trade see Allan Lougheed, Australia and the World Economy (Melbourne: McPhee Gribble/Penguin Books, 1988); Angus Maddison, Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development: A Long-Run Comparative View (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) & James Foreman-Peck, A History of the World Economy: International Economic Relations since 1850 (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983).

[Back]13. M. Stubbs-Brown, The Secondary Industries of Queensland: 1875-1900, B.A. hons thesis, University of Queensland, 1962, pp. 84-5.

[Back]14. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, pp. 13-4. For a comprehensive analysis of the economic development of the coastal ports and their relationships with their hinterlands and Brisbane see Glen. Lewis, A History of the Ports of Queensland: A Study in Economic Nationalism (St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1973).

[Back]15. Lewis, A History of the Ports, p. 24.

[Back]16. D.B. Waterson, Squatter, Selector & Storekeeper: A History of the Darling Downs, 1859-1893 (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1968), pp. 81-3.

[Back]17. Logan, et al., Urbanisation, pp. 22 & 32. & Burnley, Australian Urban System, p. 108.

[Back]18. For an excellent analysis of this controversial topic see Dan Daly, Wet as a shag, Dry as a bone: drought in a variable climate (Brisbane: Department of Primary Industries Queensland, 1994).

[Back]19. ‘Summary - Mean Population 1856-1931', Statistics of Queensland [SQ], 1931, p. 4K.

[Back]20. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, p. 28.

[Back]21. D.P. Crook, 'Occupations of the People of Brisbane: An Aspect of Urban Society in the 1880s', JHSANZ, 10, 37, (1961), pp. 50-64. & see also R.L. Lawson, Brisbane in the 1890's: a study of an Australian Urban Society (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1973).

[Back]22. For overviews on the development of the railways in Queensland see Australian Railway Historical Society: Queensland Division, Queensland Railways, 100 Years, 1865-1965 (Brisbane: ARHS:QD, 1965); Peter Carroll, 'The Railway Department 1863-1914', in Kay Cohen & Kenneth Wiltshire, eds., People, Places and Policies: Aspects of Queensland Government Administration 1859-1920 (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1995).

[Back]23. One of the few Queensland studies on this issue is P.A. McGavin, Towards an Alternative Understanding of the Pattern of Urbanisation in Australia during the Late Colonial Period (Brisbane: Department of Economics, University of Queensland, 1981), pp. 9-10.

[Back]24. For overviews of the various location theories and their application to Australia and Queensland's historical experience see M.I. Logan, et. al., Urbanisation, pp. 21-2; J.M. Powell, ed., Urban and Industrial Australia: Readings in Human Geography (Melbourne: Sorett Publishing, 1974) & F.J.B. Stilwell, Australian Urban and Regional Development (Sydney: Australia & New Zealand Book Co., 1974), pp. 61-3 & 76.

[Back]25. N.G. Butlin, 'The Shape of the Australian Economy, 1861-1900', Economic Record, 34, (1958), p. 21.

[Back]26. J. Laverty, 'The Queensland Economy 1860-1915', in D.J. Murphy, R.B. Joyce, C.A. Hughes, eds., Prelude to Power: The Rise of the Labour Party in Queensland 1885-1915 (Brisbane: Jacaranda Press, 1970), pp. 37-40.

[Back]27.For other examples of the ‘laggard' thesis see M. Gough, H. Hughes, B.J. McFarlane, et al., Queensland: Industrial Enigma, Manufacturing in the Economic Development of Queensland (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1964), pp. 7-9; C. Hughes, The Government of Queensland (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1980), pp. 6-9; B.J. Costar, Political and Social Aspects of the Great Depression in Queensland, 1929-1932, MA (Quals), University of Queensland, 1973, pp. vi-ix & B.J. Costar, Labor, Politics and Unemployment: Queensland During the Great Depression, Ph.D Thesis, University of Queensland, 1981, p. 2.

[Back]28. Laverty, ‘Queensland Economy', pp. 31 & 37.

[Back]29. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, pp. 28-9.

[Back]30. A.L. Lougheed, The Brisbane Stock Exchange, 1884-1984 (Brisbane: Boolorang Publications, 1984), p. 75.

[Back]31. A.L. Lougheed, A Century of Service: History of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce 1868-1968 (Brisbane: Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, 1969), p. 27.

[Back]32. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, pp. 2-5.

[Back]33. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, pp. 22-3.

[Back]34. Herman Schwartz, 'Foreign Creditors and the Politics of Development in Australia and Argentina 1880-1913', International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, (1989), pp. 281-301.

[Back]35. Secretary for Agriculture James Tolmie admitted to parliament that the Special Agricultural Selections Act was a failure. Queensland Parliamentary Debates [QPD], 113 (1912), p.29. & Lewis, History of the Ports, pp. 6, 76 & 83.

[Back]36. Herman Schwartz, 'Foreign Creditors', pp. 281-301.

[Back]37. They were The Manufacturing Industries Act 1869 and the Encouragement of Native Industries Act 1869. The former was meant to encourage the production of woollen and cotton textiles from local materials, and the latter proposed grants of land in urban and rural locations for the establishment of new factories.

[Back]38. ‘Summary - Factories 1863-1931', SQ, 1931, pp. 20-1k. No industrial statistics are available prior to 1863 and these were unreliable until the end of that decade. No other information of manufacturing operations (hands employed, value production, output and plant and machinery etc.) was published until 1892.

[Back]39. Processing ‘involves a change in the state of the substance being manufactured; it may also involve a change in its form. (State means the conditions in which a thing is; form means its shape or the arrangement of its parts)'. For example making flour from wheat or iron ore into iron. Fabricating 'involves the assembly of components or shaping of a material to make a new product; it involves a change in the form of the original product without changing its state.' Here the flour is made into bread or the molten iron into steel plates. Camm, Space, People, Place, pp. 209-210.

[Back]40. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, Tables 1-8, pp. 32-7.

[Back]41. Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, pp. 33 & 88-99.

[Back]42. A.R. Hall, The London Capital Market and Australia 1870-1914: Social Science Monograph No. 21 (Canberra: Australian National University, 1963), pp. 171-6. & Schwartz, ‘Foreign Creditors', pp. 281-301.

[Back]43.‘Table Ad, Immigration over Emigration - Queensland 1862-1905', in ‘Report on Vital Statistics', QPP, I, (1906), p. 1215. & ‘Table No.V, Immigration over Emigration - Queensland 1905-1909', in ‘Production', SQ (QPP), I, (1909), p. 241.

[Back]44. ‘Summary - Mean Population 1856-1931', SQ, 1931, pp. 2-3k.

[Back]45. ‘Comparative Statement of Occupations - Queensland: for Censuses of 1891, 1901 & 1911', Census of the Commonwealth of Australia (Commonwealth Census), 3, 7, (1911), p, 1288. & ‘Queensland - Occupations of Males & Females', Commonwealth Census, 1, 7, (1921), pp. 896-901.

[Back]46. ‘Australia - Industry of the Population for Censuses 1901, 1911, 1921 & 1933', Commonwealth Census, 2, 12, (1933), p. 1192. & ‘Queensland - Males & Females Recorded in Urban & Rural Divisions by Industry', Commonwealth Census, 2, 12, (1933), p. 1198.

[Back]47. Laverty, ‘Queensland Economy', p. 37.

[Back]48. ‘Comparative Statement of Occupations - Queensland: for Censuses of 1891, 1901 & 1911', Census of the Commonwealth of Australia (Commonwealth Census), 3, 7, (1911), p, 1288; ‘Queensland - Occupations of Males & Females', Commonwealth Census, 1, 7, (1921), pp. 896-901; ‘Queensland - Males & Females Recorded in Urban & Rural Divisions by Industry', Commonwealth Census, 2, 12, (1933), p. 1198. & Glen Lewis, The Crisis Years: Economic Development in Queensland 1885-1895, B.Ec. hons, University of Queensland, 1964, Appendix II, pp. 238-9.

[Back]49. A.M. Hertzberg, ‘Presidents's Annual Report', Annual Report of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce [ARBCC], 1903-4, pp. 11-12. & 1904-5, p. 9. John Oxley Library [JOL]; ‘Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories & Shops' ['F&SR'], QPP, 2, (1903), p. 129; D. Denham, QPD, 99, (1907), p. 638; Fitzgerald, Dreaming to 1915, p. 298; Costar, Political & Social Aspects, pp. viii-ix. & Laverty, 'Queensland Economy', pp.40-1.

[Back]50. Alan Jenkins, Attitudes Towards Federation in Queensland, M.A., University of Queensland, Brisbane, 1979, pp. 156-164.

[Back]51. G. Stupart, ‘President's Address', Annual Report of the Maryborough Chamber of Commerce, 1902-3 & 1904-5, JOL; ‘F&SR', QPP, 1, (1904), p. 726; J.W. Thurlow, ARBCC, 1908-9, pp. 7-8., JOL; Stubbs-Brown, Secondary Industries, p. 185. & Hughes, Queensland Government, p. 324.

[Back]52.‘Summary - Factories 1862-1931', SQ, 1931, pp. 20-1k. & ‘Production - Mills, Manufactories, Works', SQ, various, 1900-1931.

[Back]53. ‘Production - Manufactories - Hands Employed', SQ, various , 1900-1931. Females comprised at least seventeen per cent of the manufacturing workforce over this period. However, females were essentially segregated into ‘female' manufacturing occupations and in effect males and females competed in separate labour markets. For an excellent analysis of the role of women in industry see Helen Hamley, The Limits of Choice: White Women, Their Work & Labour Activism in Queensland Factories & Shops 1880s to 1920, MA Quals. Thesis, University of Queensland, 1992.

[Back]54. ‘Production - Manufactories by Type, Number of Hands, & Power Used', SQ, various, 1911-1930.

[Back]55. ‘Production - Manufactories Output etc.', SQ various, 1900-1909, & ‘Production - Manufacturing Queensland - Principal Products', A.B.C. of Queensland Statistics [ABCQS], various, 1910-1931.

[Back]56. D.C. Rich, The Industrial Geography of Australia (Sydney: Methuen, 1986), p. 40.

[Back]57. ‘Production of Queensland Industries - Estimated Gross Value Since 1871', ABCQS, 1929, p. 199. & 1932, p. 234.

[Back]58. The first Factories & Shops Act was passed in Queensland in 1896. Districts were enlarged, new ones added, (from 6 to 14 by 1921) and the application of factory regulations varied between districts. The SQ only recorded factories employing two or more hands and not powered by hand or animal from 1900-1907. This changed to 4 or more from 1908. Many primary processing industries were not brought under the Act (as amended) until after 1917, these include butter factories, sugar mills, boiling-down works and wool-scouring.

[Back]59. ‘F&SR', QPP, 2 (1909), p. 85; QPP, 2, (1920), p. 684. & QPP, 2, 1930, p. 112.

[Back]60. This estimate was made by Colin Clark, the Queensland State Statistician in the late 1930s. This and other statistical information supplied by Noel Mallory, Queensland Statistician's Office, telephone conversation with author, Brisbane, 13 May, 1997.

[Back]61. ‘Production - Mills, Manufactories, Works - by Police Districts', SQ, various, 1900-1931.

[Back]62. For details on the developmental ethos of Queensland governments from Federation onwards see David Cameron, ‘Queensland, the state of development: The State and economic development in early twentieth century Queensland', Queensland Review, 4, 1, April 1997, pp. 39-48.

[Back]63. Lewis, History of the Ports, p. 194. & W.Ross Johnston, The Call of the Land: A History of Queensland to the Present Day (Brisbane: Jacaranda Press, 1982), p. 145.

[Back]64. D.J. Murphy, The Establishment of State Enterprises in Queensland, 1915-1918, M.A. Quals. thesis., University of Queensland, Brisbane., 1965, pp. 64-6.

[Back]65. For details on the State Steelworks proposal see, ‘Report of the Royal Commission on the State Iron & Steel Works', QPP, 2, (1918), pp 1815-99; Documents relating to the Establishment of Iron & Steel Works in Queensland (1918-1923), Batch 291 - Part 1, Folios 1-265, held by the Department of the Premier & Cabinet, Brisbane & Mines Department, Queensland, & Report on the Queensland State Iron & Steelworks, 1918, MIN/A, Bundle A/8714, Queensland State Archives [QSA].

[Back]66. T. Cochrane, Blockade: The Queensland Loans Affair 1920 to 1924 (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1989). The loans embargo was triggered by political intervention in the government's loan negotiations of 1920 by Queensland and British pastoral interests outraged at amendments to the Land Act that threatened the privileged position of pastoral lease holders.

[Back]67. E.G. Theodore & W.N. Gillies, Queensland Producers' Association - Scheme for the Organisation of the Agricultural Industry of Queensland: Presented for the Consideration of the Farmers of Queensland (Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer, 1922).

[Back]68. ‘The Industries Assistance Bill of 1929', QPD, 153, (1929), p. 738; A. Armitage to Premier Moore, 17 June 1930, PRE/A999, 3684; W.M. Patterson to Premier Moore, 10 June, 1930, PRE/A998, 3539, QSA, & B.J. Costar, 'The Great Depression: Was Queensland Different?', LH, 26, (1974), pp. 37-8.

[Back]69. Williams, ‘More & Smaller is Better', p. 83.

[Back]70. J.M. Powell, 'Patrimony of the People: The role of government in land settlement', in R.L. Heathcote, ed., The Australian Experience: Essays in Australian Land Settlement and Resource Management (Melbourne: Longman, 1988), pp. 16-7. & J.M. Powell, Plains of Promise, Rivers of Destiny: Water Management and the Development of Queensland, 1824-1990 (Brisbane: Boolarong Publications, 1991), p. 24.

[Back]71. Johnston, The Call of the Land, p. 49.

Return to top of page!

Bibliography:

Australian Railway Historical Society: Queensland Division. Queensland Railways, 100 Years, 1865-1965. Brisbane: A.R.H.S:Q.D., 1965.

Bernays, C.A. Queensland Politics During Sixty (1859-1919) Years. Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer, 1919.

Burnley, I.H. The Australian Urban System: Growth, Change and Differentiation. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1980.

Butlin, N.G. 'The Shape of the Australian Economy, 1861-1900', Economic Record, 34, (1958), pp. 10-29.

Cameron, David. 'Queensland, the state of development: The State and Economic Development in Early Twentieth Century Queensland', Queensland Review, 4, 1, (1997), pp. 39-48.

Camm, J.C.R. & Irwin, P.G. Space, People, Place: economic and settlement geography. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1986.

Carroll, Peter. 'The Railway Department 1863-1914', in Cohen, Kay & Wiltshire, Kenneth, eds., People, Places and Policies: Aspects of Queensland Government Administration 1859-1920. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1995.

Cloher, D.U. ‘A perspective on Australian urbanisation', in Powell, J.M. & Williams, M., eds., Australian Space, Australian Time. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Cochrane, T. Blockade: The Queensland Loans Affair 1920 to 1924. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1989.

Commonwealth, Government. Census of the Commonwealth of Australia. 3, 7, (1911); 1, 7, (1921) & 2, 12, (1931).

Costar, B.J. Labor, Politics and Unemployment: Queensland During the Great Depression. PhD, University of Queensland, 1981.

Costar, B.J. 'The Great Depression: Was Queensland Different?', Labour History, 26, (1974), pp. 32-48.

Costar, B.J. Political and Social Aspects of the Great Depression in Queensland, 1929-1932. MA (Quals), University of Queensland, 1973.

Crook, D.P. 'Occupations of the People of Brisbane: An Aspect of Urban Society in the 1880s', JHSANZ, 10, 37, (1961), pp. 50-64.

Daly, Dan. Wet as a shag, Dry as a bone: drought in a variable climate. Brisbane: Department of Primary Industries Queensland, 1994.

Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Queensland:
Documents relating to the establishment of Iron and Steel Works in Queensland (1918-1923). Batch 291 - Part 1., Folios 1-265.

Fitzgerald, Ross. A History of Queensland from the Dreaming to 1915. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1986.

Foreman-Peck, James. A History of the World Economy: International Economic Relations since 1850. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983.

Glynn, Sean. Urbanisation in Australian History 1788-1900. Melbourne: Nelson, 1975.

Gough, M., Hughes, H., McFarlane, B.J., & Palmer, G.R. Queensland: Industrial Enigma, Manufacturing in the Economic Development of Queensland. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1964.

Hall, A.R. The London Capital Market and Australia 1870-1914: Social Science Monograph No. 21. Canberra: Australian National University, 1963.

Hamley, H. The Limits of Choice:White Women, Their Work and Labour Activism in Queensland Factories and Shops, 1880s to 1920. M.A. Qual., University of Queensland, Brisbane., 1992.

Hughes, C. The Government of Queensland. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1980.

Jenkins, Alan. Attitudes Towards Federation in Queensland. M.A., University of Queensland, Brisbane, 1979.

John Oxley Library, Brisbane
Annual Report of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce.
Annual Report of the Maryborough Chamber of Commerce.

Johnston, W.Ross. The Call of the Land: A History of Queensland to the Present Day. Brisbane: Jacaranda Press, 1982.

Knight, J.J. In the Early Days: History and Incident of Pioneer Queensland. Brisbane: Sapsford, 1895.

Laverty, J. ‘The Queensland Economy 1860-1915', in Murphy, D.J., Joyce, R.B., & Hughes, C.A., eds., Prelude to Power: The Rise of the Labour Party in Queensland 1885-1915. Brisbane: Jacaranda Press, 1970.

Lawson, R.L. Brisbane in the 1890's: a study of an Australian urban society. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1973.

Lewis, G. A History of the Ports of Queensland: A Study in Economic Nationalism. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1973.

Lewis, Glen. The Crisis Years: Economic Development in Queensland 1885-1895. B.Ec. hons, University of Queensland, 1964.

Linge, G.J.R. Industrial Awakening: A Geography of Australian Manufacturing 1788 to 1890. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1979.

Logan, M.I., Whitelaw, J.S., & McKay, J. Urbanisation: the Australian Experience. Melbourne: Shillington House, 1981.

Lougheed, Allan. L. Australia and the World Economy. Melbourne: McPhee Gribble/Penguin Books, 1988.

Lougheed, Allan. L. The Brisbane Stock Exchange, 1884-1984. Brisbane: Boolorang Publications, 1984.

Lougheed, Allan. L. A Century of Service: History of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce 1868-1968. Brisbane: Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, 1969.

Maddison, Angus. Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development: A Long-Run Comparative View. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

McGavin, P.A. Towards an Alternative Understanding of the Pattern of Urbanisation in Australia during the Late Colonial Period. Brisbane: Department of Economics, University of Queensland, 1981.

Murphy, D.J. T.J.Ryan: A Political Biography. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1990.

Murphy, D.J. The Establishment of State Enterprises in Queensland, 1915-1918. M.A. Quals. thesis., University of Queensland, 1965.

Powell, J.M. Plains of Promise, Rivers of Destiny: Water Management and the Development of Queensland, 1824-1990. Brisbane: Boolarong Publications, 1991.

Powell, J.M. ‘Patrimony of the People: The role of government in land settlement', in Heathcote, R.L., ed., The Australian Experience: Essays in Australian Land Settlement and Resource Management. Melbourne: Longman, 1988.

Powell, J.M., ed., Urban and Industrial Australia: Readings in Human Geography. Melbourne: Sorett Publishing, 1974.

Queensland Parliamentary Debates. Brisbane, 99, (1907); 113, (1912) & 153, (1929).

Queensland Parliamentary Papers. Brisbane, 1900-1931.

Queensland State Archives
Premier's Department:
Correspondence files, 1930. PRE/A
Mines Department:
Report on the Queensland State Iron and Steelworks, 1918. MIN/A, Bundle A/8714.

‘Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Shops'. Queensland Parliamentary Papers. Brisbane, 1900-1931.

‘Report of the Royal Commission on the State Iron and Steel Works, 1918'. Queensland Parliamentary Papers. Brisbane, 2, 1918.

‘Report on Vital Statistics'. Queensland Parliamentary Papers. Brisbane, 1, 1906.

Rich, D.C. The Industrial Geography of Australia. Sydney: Methuen, 1986.

Schwartz, Herman. 'Foreign Creditors and the Politics of Development in Australia and Argentina 1880-1913', International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, (1989), pp. 281-301.

‘Statistics of the State of Queensland', in Queensland Parliamentary Papers. Brisbane, 1900-1931.

Stilwell, F.J.B. Australian Urban and Regional Development. Sydney: Australia & New Zealand Book Co., 1974.

Stubbs-Brown, M. The Secondary Industries of Queensland: 1875-1900. B.A. hons, Brisbane, University of Queensland., 1962.

Theodore, E.G. & Gillies, W.N. Queensland Producers' Association - Scheme for the Organisation of the Agricultural Industry of Queensland: Presented for the Consideration of the Farmers of Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer, 1922.

Waterson, D.B. Squatter, Selector & Storekeeper: A History of the Darling Downs, 1859-1893. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1968.

Williams, M. ‘More and Smaller is Better: Australian Rural Settlement 1788-1914', in Powell, J.M. & Williams, M., eds., Australian Space, Australian Time. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Wood, Peter. ‘Site and Pre-War Growth', in Wood, Peter & Philpott, Malcolm, eds., Brisbane and its River: 43rd ANZAAS Congress, Brisbane May 24-28, 1971. Brisbane: Australia & New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, 1971.

Return to top of page!

David Cameron [Copyright 1997]
University of Queensland - 1997
david.cameron@mailbox.uq.edu.au