The Australian Constitution and the Idea of Western Australian Secession, By Ian Wilson LL. B
The idea of Western Australia seceding from the Commonwealth of Australia sounds dramatic — a giant swathe of land and resources breaking away to form its own nation — and it taps into a deep, enduring strand of West Australian identity. It isn't just trolling or historical trivia: for decades, a sense of being ignored or economically squeezed by Canberra has made "WAxit" a recurring theme in state politics and public debate. There was even a referendum in 1933 — nearly two-thirds of West Australian voters supported the idea of withdrawing from the Australian federation — but it never happened. The story of why it didn't, and why it can't happen without sweeping constitutional change, is both fascinating and instructive about how the Australian federation actually works.
To understand the secession question, it's crucial to start with the Constitution. Australia's constitutional framework provides mechanisms for altering the internal borders and powers of the federation — but it does not contain any straightforward, pre‑written process for a state to unilaterally leave the Commonwealth. The Constitution was designed as an act of voluntary union: the colonies agreed to federate in 1901, forming a single nation under a shared legal and political structure. But that union isn't described as "indissoluble" simply by sentiment; in practice, the Constitution doesn't spell out how, or even whether, a state can go in the opposite direction.
The closest the Constitution comes to addressing changes to state boundaries is in Section 123, which deals with alterations to state borders. It says that any change in a state's limits — effectively any redrawing of borders between states — must be approved by the relevant state parliament and then ratified by a referendum of that state's electors. In plain terms: Western Australia could not shrink or expand its territory without approval from its own parliament and its own voters. But that section isn't a secession clause; it's about boundary adjustments, like swapping land between states.
For a genuine secession — where WA becomes a separate sovereign nation — there are two main legal pathways under the current constitutional framework: constitutional amendment, or unilateral action outside the Constitution.
The first involves section 128, the general amendment procedure. Any constitutional change must be approved by a majority of voters in Australia, and a majority of the voters in a majority of states (the so‑called "double majority"). That means even if West Australians voted overwhelmingly for secession, a constitutional amendment allowing WA to leave would require the approval of all Australians and a majority in at least four of the six states. Given the political realities, this is extremely unlikely. Australians rarely approve constitutional change at all — out of 44 proposed amendments since Federation, only eight have succeeded — and secession would be by far the most significant alteration ever proposed.
The second pathway — unilateral action — would mean WA effectively ignoring the Constitution and declaring independence anyway. That would raise all the issues of revolution rather than legal reform: taking over federal infrastructure, withdrawing WA senators and representatives, establishing independent defence and regulatory systems, and seeking recognition from other countries. In legal terms, this would be outside the Constitution entirely — a break, not a constitutional amendment — and almost certainly would trigger a political and judicial crisis. The High Court has ruled in related contexts that state governments cannot act contrary to the Constitution or ignore Commonwealth law; secession without a lawful process would almost certainly be challenged.
The historical backdrop helps to explain how these legal constraints have shaped the secession question in practice. The 1933 referendum in WA did show strong support, and the state parliament passed secession legislation in 1934. But the movement then took its petition to the British Parliament (at that time still formally able to legislate for Australia), seeking an imperial statute to amend the Australian Constitution to allow secession. That petition was rejected: by then, the Statute of Westminster 1931 had already established that the British Parliament no longer had the power to change the Australian Constitution against the wishes of the Commonwealth and the rest of Australia. As a result, the secession movement's appeal failed, and WA remained in the federation.
So today, under the Australia Act 1986, which ended almost all remaining constitutional ties to Britain, the only legal way for WA to leave Australia would be through the domestic constitutional process — the double‑majority referendum and parliamentary approvals. Absent that, the union is legally indissoluble in practice, even if not described as such in any single explicit clause.
Understanding secession this way highlights something important about Australian federalism. The Constitution was designed not merely to join the states, but to anchor them together in a stable political and legal community. Changing that anchor requires consent from the whole community. It was true in 1901 when the colonies federated, and it remains true today. Western Australians may repeatedly feel aggrieved — economically or politically — in part because resource wealth, population distribution, and policy decisions often centre around Canberra and the eastern states. But feeling aggrieved and having a legal right to extract oneself from the federation are very different matters.
This is why contemporary discussions about "secession" often shade into fiscal autonomy or enhanced state powers without actually demanding full independence. There have been motions within WA political parties to explore financial independence or greater control over taxes and revenue flows, if not outright secession. These moves reflect genuine frustration with Canberra's fiscal arrangements, but they also acknowledge the near‑impossibility of full legal secession under the Constitution as it stands.
The secession question, therefore, sits at the intersection of identity, economics, law, and constitutional politics. For those who feel Western Australia is treated unfairly in the federation, secession becomes a symbol of broader grievances. But legally speaking, WA's place in the Commonwealth isn't an accident that can be unravelled by a state ballot or a social media campaign. It is part of a constitutional order that requires national consent for structural change. That is a high bar — and deliberately so. It protects the unity of the nation, but it also means that any serious call for secession will always confront both legal and political realities that are far broader than West Australia alone.
https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/secession-by-western-australia-book
