New Zealand under Australian Rule

[kernals12]

As a break from all the Canada-part-of-America threads, let's look at a somewhat similar situation on the other side of the world. New Zealand considered joining with Australia but backed out. So what if it hadn't?

 

[Lusitania]

So when would this if happen?

Would it of demanded a percentage of the Australian parliament and senate seats, regardless of population?

Would enlarged Australia-new Zealand go on to also incorporate other surrounding British colonies?

How would a enlarged Australia deal with geo-political issues of south east Asia? Would it give Australia greater and stronger voice in world stage?

How would it’s armed forces of evolved? After WW2 Australia like Canada leased a few British aircraft carriers and like Canada decided to abandon the idea. With large ocean to protect would it of kept the aircraft carriers and possibly develop new model jointly with Britain?

 

[kernals12]

So when would this if happen?

Would it of demanded a percentage of the Australian parliament and senate seats, regardless of population?

Would enlarged Australia-new Zealand go on to also incorporate other surrounding British colonies?

How would a enlarged Australia deal with geo-political issues of south east Asia? Would it give Australia greater and stronger voice in world stage?

How would it’s armed forces of evolved? After WW2 Australia like Canada leased a few British aircraft carriers and like Canada decided to abandon the idea. With large ocean to protect would it of kept the aircraft carriers and possibly develop new model jointly with Britain?

I'm assuming it would happen in 1891. And New Zealand would get 6 senators like every other Australian province and get House of Representative seats in line with its population.

 

[Marc]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my modest understanding is that New Zealand culture does differ enough from Australia's to make it an uncomfortable marriage - besides the hassle of the Ditch separating them.

 

[Lusitania]

I'm assuming it would happen in 1891. And New Zealand would get 6 senators like every other Australian province and get House of Representative seats in line with its population.

While I can only use Canada as point of reference, I wonder if one of the issues impeding union was the relative size of Australia to New Zealand population if New Zealand was worried it would not have a voice and if New Zealand would of demanded several provinces instead of one so that it had a greater representation?

 

[kernals12]

While I can only use Canada as point of reference, I wonder if one of the issues impeding union was the relative size of Australia to New Zealand population if New Zealand was worried it would not have a voice and if New Zealand would of demanded several provinces instead of one so that it had a greater representation?

Canada's population is about 11% of that of the US. New Zealand's population is almost 20% of Australia's.

 

[Lusitania]

Canada's population is about 11% of that of the US. New Zealand's population is almost 20% of Australia's.

Sorry my bad I am comparing Quebec to rest of Canada in 1867 when it received special guarantee to the Canadian senate so that it held a large % of the senators in comparison to other provinces.

So what was New Zealand population compared to Australia in 1891 and was the thought New Zealand would be over ruled and dominated by Australia?

 

[kernals12]

Sorry my bad I am comparing Quebec to rest of Canada in 1867 when it received special guarantee to the Canadian senate so that it held a large % of the senators in comparison to other provinces.

So what was New Zealand population compared to Australia in 1891 and was the thought New Zealand would be over ruled and dominated by Australia?

Australia had 3.2 million in 1891, New Zealand had 670,000, so just over 1/5th

 

[Lusitania]

Australia had 3.2 million in 1891, New Zealand had 670,000, so just over 1/5th

Do we know what the stumbling blocks to the merger were?

 

[kernals12]

Do we know what the stumbling blocks to the merger were?

Here's what the New Zealand government says

Premier Richard Seddon preferred to be the leader of an independent country rather than an Australian state. He set up the Royal Commission in 1900 to buy time and get a sense of public opinion. While most submissions opposed union with Australia, many farmers were in favour, fearing new trade barriers to their produce.

The prevailing view was that New Zealanders were of superior stock to their counterparts across the Tasman. New Zealand’s trade was mostly with the United Kingdom; Australians were economic rivals rather than partners. Although New Zealand and Australia eventually signed a Free Trade Agreement in 1965, and the two economies have become closely integrated, political union is no closer today than it was in 1901.

 

[Lusitania]

Here's what the New Zealand government says

So the general attitude of some that New Zealand being settled by free British were superior to people descendant from penal colony was in fact the greatest deterrent? What I think would of helped the cause of union would of been a more Ant-British or expansionist US looking at English British colonies in the Pacific with special interest. It could of spurred both colonies to join together for security.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my modest understanding is that New Zealand culture does differ enough from Australia's to make it an uncomfortable marriage - besides the hassle of the Ditch separating them.

Was the difference so huge in 1891, at least as compared to the cultural differences within Australia itself?

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Consider that there was arguably a similar level of opposition in Western Australia to uniting with the rest of the subcontinent as there was in New Zealand during this time.

Heck, imagine a world where New Zealand joins Australia but Western Australia does not.

 

[Lusitania]

Consider that there was arguably a similar level of opposition in Western Australia to uniting with the rest of the subcontinent as there was in New Zealand during this time.

Heck, imagine a world where New Zealand joins Australia but Western Australia does not.

What we could have though due to some circumstances is that British are keen on United British dominion covering all of pacific and south east Asia south of Singapore. We could end up with a federation type of country especially if Australia and New Zealand had larger populations.

I think it would of changed the dynamics of the region, should of lead to larger emigration from Europe but more difficult European - native interaction. Especially if the union also included rest of British pacific islands and papau New Guinea.

 

[The Professor]

Well, this is a more realistic scenario for a change .
Would NZ go in as 2 states or 1?
Does this then later permit British/Australian New Guinea becoming a member state?
Commonwealth of Australia or Australasia or Oceania or something else?

 

[Lusitania]

Well, this is a more realistic scenario for a change .
Would NZ go in as 2 states or 1?
Does this then later permit British/Australian New Guinea becoming a member state?
Commonwealth of Australia or Australasia or Oceania or something else?

Minimum 2 states for greater representation. Same with western. In some ways a way to dilute eastern Australia power.

 

[Napoleone the Kiwi]

Was the difference so huge in 1891, at least as compared to the cultural differences within Australia itself?

The Treatment of the Aborigines was another major point of difference, despite the recent end to the New Zealand wars, enough cooperating Maori chiefs rebelling again would have further bankrupted the country (or state in this timeline). Especially since loyalist chiefs were still the law in their regions considering how many arms they were supplied with to combat other Maori.

 

[Wendell]

New Zealand would be one state, not two, were it part of Australia.

 

[Lusitania]

New Zealand would be one state, not two, were it part of Australia.

Why would you be so sure, for representation purposes I would think they would want to be two. Therefore they get twice the representation

 

[Wendell]

Why would you be so sure, for representation purposes I would think they would want to be two. Therefore they get twice the representation

The archipelago is more practical to govern as a single unit, and the population would not justify separate states. There's a reason why New Munster and New Ulster were consolidated historically.