Australia plus New Zealand
- Thread starter drakle
- Start date
Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Kicked
Why would they?
The reasons for not joining were pretty clear. New Zealand had been developing an identity different to that of Australia since the 1860s. The two nations were colonised in very different manners, with Australia starting as a penal colony and New Zealand often referred to as a 'new Britain' by some. New Zealand attracted a number more Scots and Irish than Australia, as far as I'm aware, and our indigenous people were handled in an entirely more savoury manner (keep in mind that by 'better' I do not mean 'great').
The climates of the two nations are unarguably different and always have been, referring to both nature and politics. Economically, many New Zealanders saw their nation as the centre of Pacific trade, which they would have to give up if they were to join Australia. New Zealanders were also afraid of losing their local autonomy.
It's hard to find a POD in the early days of the colonies to make federation happen. New Zealand was once run by the colony of New South Wales, but that ended in 1840 with the Treaty of Waitangi (our nation's "founding document") which united the Pakeha and Maori into a single New Zealand identity (sort of...that was one of the ideas, I suppose). You can't avoid that treaty without prolonging the New Zealand Wars, which will drive our national identity into a completely different, yet still unique, direction.
It seems like it ought to be a simple task, uniting Australia and NZ, but it is far from it. In OTL, almost every event leads to two separate countries.
The reasons for not joining were pretty clear. New Zealand had been developing an identity different to that of Australia since the 1860s. The two nations were colonised in very different manners, with Australia starting as a penal colony and New Zealand often referred to as a 'new Britain' by some. New Zealand attracted a number more Scots and Irish than Australia, as far as I'm aware, and our indigenous people were handled in an entirely more savoury manner (keep in mind that by 'better' I do not mean 'great').
The climates of the two nations are unarguably different and always have been, referring to both nature and politics. Economically, many New Zealanders saw their nation as the centre of Pacific trade, which they would have to give up if they were to join Australia. New Zealanders were also afraid of losing their local autonomy.
It's hard to find a POD in the early days of the colonies to make federation happen. New Zealand was once run by the colony of New South Wales, but that ended in 1840 with the Treaty of Waitangi (our nation's "founding document") which united the Pakeha and Maori into a single New Zealand identity (sort of...that was one of the ideas, I suppose). You can't avoid that treaty without prolonging the New Zealand Wars, which will drive our national identity into a completely different, yet still unique, direction.
It seems like it ought to be a simple task, uniting Australia and NZ, but it is far from it. In OTL, almost every event leads to two separate countries.
Hmmm very hard to do ..even if you could do it I doubt it would last .
However possibly a Russian threat ,A massivly expansive Russian empire with a better Crimea allowing a not totaly victorious Russia running Due east towards the far east ,not giving up Alaska etc
It forces union rather than persuades?
However possibly a Russian threat ,A massivly expansive Russian empire with a better Crimea allowing a not totaly victorious Russia running Due east towards the far east ,not giving up Alaska etc
It forces union rather than persuades?
While there were fears of the Russians it'd take actual Russian presence in the South Pacific to actually have any real influence beyond the building of forts. As Emperor of New Zealand said, there are actually very many differences in interests between our two countries. While it's probably feasible to create some EU-like relationship at some point, with a joint currency and such, even that is difficult. Australia has economically not been particularly friendly towards New Zealand. We refused to allow New Zealand apples into Australia for almost a century, for instance. We also aren't keen on the weaker New Zealand economy effecting ours.
Actual political union is an order of magnitude harder, if only because there is no reason for it. It would never be a union of equals, and Kiwis understandably would not want to be ruled from Canberra. Perhaps some future developments will change this, but for now and at any point after the early 19th century political union would require some serious motivations just not present in OTL.
Actual political union is an order of magnitude harder, if only because there is no reason for it. It would never be a union of equals, and Kiwis understandably would not want to be ruled from Canberra. Perhaps some future developments will change this, but for now and at any point after the early 19th century political union would require some serious motivations just not present in OTL.
That sounds nice and all, and even taking into account obvious NZer bias, New Zealand joining Australia seems pretty unlikely if Australia forms around the same time. But this OTL example of Nova Scotia shows that sometimes not even being a white settler was enough to override the inherent antidemocratic nature of Empire:
You need to have Britain feel like they could be driven out of the Pacific, like they feared they would be driven out of North America. The United States or Germany having an earlier naval rise would do the trick. But I don't think this could technically be done with a POD After 1900.
Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Kicked
I don't understand how you are countering my point. You've more or less accused me of having bias while agreeing with me.
There were several correspondences between Australia and New Zealand regarding confederation leading up to the 1901 events. Every time, New Zealand's chosen emissary (there was someone named Captain Russel I believe) would vocally oppose federation on behalf of New Zealand's government. It has nothing to do with bias; it's just a bloody difficult thing to do.
Edit: As a personal aside, accusing me of having New Zealander bias is like saying Sarah Palin is fond of the Democratic Party; it's so far from the truth it's embarrassing. I have no great love for my country and intend to leave it as soon as economically possible.
Last edited:
I think it is pretty likely that we could have federated but the PODs would need to be early
For one remove Seddon or minimise his influence? He was PM for a long time, over the key period and if he was out/changed his mind, that would mean active participation for longer.
Or look to delay the removal of provinces? Go for an island based structure instead - separate state governments for the North and South Island - this was on the cards and could have happened easily enough as well. If we end up with a two state *NZ, then it is much more likely those two states/colonies would be interested in participating in federation.
If NZ* joined a federation it is quite possible the capital would not be in Canberra as the power dynamic of Sydney-Melbourne would now be drawn further by NZ - I would suspect the capital would need to be a coastal city for one.
I don't particularly think the NZ psyche was that different from the Australian colonies prior to federation - they all saw themselves as one community and there was a lot of internal migration and mutual interest. After federation that certainly begins to change, but before? How different is a NSWer from a Victorian from a Dunedinite or someone in WA or Gisborne? Note the various immigrants born in Australian colonies who later became senior politicians in NZ (including one of our greatest PMs, Savage - from Victoria)
For one remove Seddon or minimise his influence? He was PM for a long time, over the key period and if he was out/changed his mind, that would mean active participation for longer.
Or look to delay the removal of provinces? Go for an island based structure instead - separate state governments for the North and South Island - this was on the cards and could have happened easily enough as well. If we end up with a two state *NZ, then it is much more likely those two states/colonies would be interested in participating in federation.
If NZ* joined a federation it is quite possible the capital would not be in Canberra as the power dynamic of Sydney-Melbourne would now be drawn further by NZ - I would suspect the capital would need to be a coastal city for one.
I don't particularly think the NZ psyche was that different from the Australian colonies prior to federation - they all saw themselves as one community and there was a lot of internal migration and mutual interest. After federation that certainly begins to change, but before? How different is a NSWer from a Victorian from a Dunedinite or someone in WA or Gisborne? Note the various immigrants born in Australian colonies who later became senior politicians in NZ (including one of our greatest PMs, Savage - from Victoria)
Riain
Banned
What's in it for us? NZ was fine economically until about the 70s and since then its steadily slipped in relation to us to the point where it is only 2/3 as wealthy as Australia. Basically it would be a burden for much of the Federation era.
What is it with wanting Australia to Federate with economic basket cases (harsh for the Kiwis but accurate for the other usual suggestions), don't people like us? Isn't Tasmania enough of a drag? Perhaps NZ could federate with Tasmania.
What is it with wanting Australia to Federate with economic basket cases (harsh for the Kiwis but accurate for the other usual suggestions), don't people like us? Isn't Tasmania enough of a drag? Perhaps NZ could federate with Tasmania.
I hardly think NZ meets any definition of basket case. The usual suggestions I guess you mean the British Pacific islands?
Anyway, the OP/normal suggestions tend to be about or before federation, so, 1900 or before, not the 1970s.
I tend to agree with you though if we are talking about anytime past WW1. There isn't really any strong need for it - but there could be other kinds of arrangement that might suit us both better. I am not convinced a common currency is a good idea having seen the differences in the economies this last few decades and given the Euro.
Some sort of earlier CER/CDR? Some sort of close association from day one that is not federation?
More unitary organisations to deal with common problems?
Current migration to Australia-
Some 640 000 Kiwis currently in Australia - with 60 000 long term arrivals in 2011-12
These are NOT counted as part of the Australian Immigration intake.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/17nz.htm
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Yes, I said basket case is harsh in the case of NZ but still they are only 2/3 per capita as wealthy as Australia and a lack of economic opportunity is a reason that a lot of them cite as a reason for moving here. Perhaps if they were federated the Kiwi economy would develop differently and therefore not decline as much.
katchen
Banned
A different policy by Governor Lachlan Macquarie, of a new penal colony every year instead of piling up convicts in Sydney would likely have led to convict settlement of New Zealand (and not incidentally saved Macquarie's job from criticism in Parliament that New South Wales was becoming too soft a colony to deter criminality). But that's a pre-1900 POD.
What would make a truly interesting POD would be if Lionel Curtis's 1937 idea of federation of the UK with it's predominantly white colonies partially catches on in 1940, leading to a federation of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the face of fears of abandonment by both the UK and the US. Perhaps the capital of such a federation could be at Auckland or Wellington, which would make the best sense in terms of time zones. A federation of this nature could also be made to include the British West Indies with less fear of racial "imbalance" as well as nonwhite colonies such as Fiji and the Solomon Islands, and with 25 million people, would even initially, rival the UK in GNP. And at the time, perhaps Allied occupied Greenland and Iceland and Faeroes as well.
Yes, Australia and Canada are geographically distant from one another. But by WWII, with radio, airplanes, trans-pacific cables and ships that can travel from Vancouver to Auckland in 14 days (Sydney 16 days), the difference is much less than say, between Sacramento and Washington DC in 1850 when California joined the United States.
What would make such a TL TRULY interesting would be the way such a federation, growing to 50 million people by the 1980s could provide a true social democratic counterbalance and alternative to the United States as the US goes more conservative from the 1980s to the present. Or even in the 60s and 70s. Such a federation, particularly if it also included the West Indies with it's non-white populations (migrating to Australia and Canada) might be amenable to annexing West New Guinea when the Dutch wanted out of it, instead of letting Indonesia take it over. And might even threafter permit unrestricted migration of New Guineans to Australia and Canada leading perhaps to a plebiscite for statehood for New Guinea instead of decolonization and statehood without a vote of Papua-New Guineans
.( For make no mistake, and I fully realize that this will set the cat amongst the pidteons.. The decolonization and statehood of Papua-New Guinea without a plebiscite, as was handled IOTL was as much an act of Grand Apartheid as South Africa's internationally condemned and unrecognized belated attempt to do the same thing with it's bantustans. Australia, because it kept up the wall between PNG and the Solomons and Australia (and abollished Kanak slave labor in Queensland) avoided most petty apartheid (except for Aboriginals who made up less than1% of the population). Australia was thus able to make grand apartheid work in a way that South Africa did not (ironically even after White Australia Policy was abandoned in 1975) and be able to in effect, hypocritcally tell South Africans, do as I say, not as I, Australia , did).
Anyway, an Australia-Canada federation of then 50 million people might not feel a need to do this (and if the West Indies are part of the federation, might be politically constrained against doing this). And might permit Asian immigration sooner. And might even annex some British Indian Ocean colonies as Mauritius and the Seychelles and the Chagos and Maldives.
Such a federation would have made sense then. And it makes even more sense now IOTL.
What would make a truly interesting POD would be if Lionel Curtis's 1937 idea of federation of the UK with it's predominantly white colonies partially catches on in 1940, leading to a federation of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the face of fears of abandonment by both the UK and the US. Perhaps the capital of such a federation could be at Auckland or Wellington, which would make the best sense in terms of time zones. A federation of this nature could also be made to include the British West Indies with less fear of racial "imbalance" as well as nonwhite colonies such as Fiji and the Solomon Islands, and with 25 million people, would even initially, rival the UK in GNP. And at the time, perhaps Allied occupied Greenland and Iceland and Faeroes as well.
Yes, Australia and Canada are geographically distant from one another. But by WWII, with radio, airplanes, trans-pacific cables and ships that can travel from Vancouver to Auckland in 14 days (Sydney 16 days), the difference is much less than say, between Sacramento and Washington DC in 1850 when California joined the United States.
What would make such a TL TRULY interesting would be the way such a federation, growing to 50 million people by the 1980s could provide a true social democratic counterbalance and alternative to the United States as the US goes more conservative from the 1980s to the present. Or even in the 60s and 70s. Such a federation, particularly if it also included the West Indies with it's non-white populations (migrating to Australia and Canada) might be amenable to annexing West New Guinea when the Dutch wanted out of it, instead of letting Indonesia take it over. And might even threafter permit unrestricted migration of New Guineans to Australia and Canada leading perhaps to a plebiscite for statehood for New Guinea instead of decolonization and statehood without a vote of Papua-New Guineans
.( For make no mistake, and I fully realize that this will set the cat amongst the pidteons.. The decolonization and statehood of Papua-New Guinea without a plebiscite, as was handled IOTL was as much an act of Grand Apartheid as South Africa's internationally condemned and unrecognized belated attempt to do the same thing with it's bantustans. Australia, because it kept up the wall between PNG and the Solomons and Australia (and abollished Kanak slave labor in Queensland) avoided most petty apartheid (except for Aboriginals who made up less than1% of the population). Australia was thus able to make grand apartheid work in a way that South Africa did not (ironically even after White Australia Policy was abandoned in 1975) and be able to in effect, hypocritcally tell South Africans, do as I say, not as I, Australia , did).
Anyway, an Australia-Canada federation of then 50 million people might not feel a need to do this (and if the West Indies are part of the federation, might be politically constrained against doing this). And might permit Asian immigration sooner. And might even annex some British Indian Ocean colonies as Mauritius and the Seychelles and the Chagos and Maldives.
Such a federation would have made sense then. And it makes even more sense now IOTL.
Opinions vary, especially among people who don't actually live there. You might want to talk to people who do, or have emigrated to that country. They'll have a cross-section of opinions as well, but you might be able to see some common elements cropping up in your sample.
One big plus for NZ: no snakes OR dropbears!
It doesn't really fit any definition of basket case though. Your other points are reasonable but I would think there are many PODs that could occur to stop NZ's relative decline. Pity we've had a lot of bad luck and poor decision making. Compare us to most of the rest of the world and it is still pretty good. The economy is stable, the government is stable and unemployment is low.
The migration probably has many explanations, but one of them is that Australia and NZ have always had strong migration patterns between each other since settlement. Another is that if it is easy to immigrate somewhere slightly better then people will do it, even if things are not that bad at home. London for example is full of Aussies (and Kiwis (me) and everyone else!).
I don't think most Kiwis see migrating to Australia any differently from moving to say Auckland from down country.
And VV for Australians if the opportunity offers.
Incidentally the conversion of parts of the mining industry to 'fly in, fly out' jobs has had an interesting impact.
I've heard of someone living in Wellington (NZ not NSW) and working at Groote Eylandt.
I'm not sure where they stand in the migration and employment stakes - but I bet Australia gets the Tax.