Mistress of the Southern Seas
- Thread starter LacheyS
- Start date
That would be a good idea, although I don't know how likely it is. When I looked up the Australian rail system (I had a couple of ideas for getting rail to Darwin earlier), I couldn't believe the hodgepodge it is OTL. It looks, today, like the US did back in the 1850s!
The next instalment on which I'm working is in relation to the early High Court of Australasia and its interpretations of various incidents and allegations. But following that, I had put my mind to looking at the work of Major General Edwards, who wrote on the subject from a defence standpoint.
Thinking about it in terms of political realism, however, it would take a decade for the States to reach agreement that all future railways should be one gauge type, another decade to agree that some past railways lines need to be re-gauged and paid for, and another two decades to actually agree which ones and a further decade before the Government of the day finds the money to do it all. So, even in the least dystopic of timelines, say hello to 1930.
My explanation for the gauge mess is simple bloody-minded and parochial insularity. It is a trait I'm afraid is very common in Australia. I know I've discriminated against Queenslanders in the past
. Sydney and Melbourne loathe each other, though the hinterlands of NSW and Victoria generally just hate their capitals. Most of the people I know have no clue about Western Australia and perceive them as culturally confusing. I don't know how NSW is perceived in the rest of the country, though I imagine that most just shake their heads at our latest scandals. But the insularity does persist, even 110 years after federation.
No problem whatsoever. I'm certainly not an expert on either country, despite living in one of them.
I hope you're not resentful that your namesake didn't get the Prime Ministership.
Points well made and received on reverting to the old borders. So, would you then recommend that New Ulster and New Munster be separated by the Cook Strait?
And a query if I might? If that's the new border, Vogel moves into http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs and Fox was from New Ulster and that throws the Cabinet arrangements out. So, thinking of removing Fox's role in earlier posts and substituting Senator Sir John Hall from the start. Your thoughts?
Re the provinces - yup, use the islands I think.
JV was a long standing supporter of separating the North Island/South Island and it seems it may even be possible to read the records of the parliamentary vote on this specific matter on 19 September, 1865, where it lost 31-17. I tried to earlier, but the website is timing out.
Try http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs
Vogel was Dunedin/South Island/New Munster based for his initial rise to power, so with your POD probably never moves to the North Island. Fox will be in the North Island/New Ulster.
Agreed that Vogel was a very interesting character - certainly capable of greater things, if your TL allows for it. Seems though that he might be better as a number two than number one?
You should also look to Robert Stout, later premier and Chief Justice (not at the same time!) - although he didn't rise to power till the 1870s, after your POD. He would be in full flight during the foundation of the Federation. Disclosure, he is some sort of distant relative via the Shetlands.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2s48/stout-robert
Sir George Grey is also worth looking into. He IOTL came back to NZ about 1874 and entered politics, eventually rising to Premier. This also is after your POD I guess
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/grey-sir-george/page-6
Last edited:
The next instalment on which I'm working is in relation to the early High Court of Australasia and its interpretations of various incidents and allegations. But following that, I had put my mind to looking at the work of Major General Edwards, who wrote on the subject from a defence standpoint.
Thinking about it in terms of political realism, however, it would take a decade for the States to reach agreement that all future railways should be one gauge type, another decade to agree that some past railways lines need to be re-gauged and paid for, and another two decades to actually agree which ones and a further decade before the Government of the day finds the money to do it all. So, even in the least dystopic of timelines, say hello to 1930.
My explanation for the gauge mess is simple bloody-minded and parochial insularity. It is a trait I'm afraid is very common in Australia. I know I've discriminated against Queenslanders in the past
There was a bit of a keffufle about railways in NZ too - iirc the various provinces initially dealt with the railway building, then the almost inevitable debt crisis following formed a key reason for centralisation and the abolishment of the provinces. Later, after Vogel's expansion, the foreign debt taken on contributed markedly to NZ's decline during the Long Depression
One of the implications may be that the White Austral(as)ia policy is DOA. There were already Indians in Fiji at the time of your POD - the first contract laborers arrived in 1879 - and the sugar planters will keep bringing them in, because Fijians don't care for plantation work. Once the Indians are established in Fiji, there'll be no keeping them out of the rest of Australasia. I'd expect Indian merchant communities in the major cities by the turn of the twentieth century, and they'll be a larger and more permanent part of Australasian life than the "Afghans" of OTL.
The Fijian planters will probably import Gilbertese too (as they did in OTL), assuming that Kiribati becomes a British protectorate, which seems likely with a POD in the 1880s. They'll also find their way to the metropole, albeit more voluntarily than their counterparts who were blackbirded to Queensland.
Another implication, I'd guess, is that Australasia will be a natural choice to administer any British colonial acquisitions in the southwest Pacific. If there's anything like World War I, for instance, Samoa might become an Australasian territory; Bougainville and the Solomons are also possibilities. This would lead to a more diverse Australasia, with more non-Maori Pacific Island cultural influence (dominantly Melanesian, but also with Polynesian and Melanesian components via Samoa and the Gilberts) and possibly Hawaii-style cultural borrowings among the whites. The idea of backyard Samoan umus in Sydney is strangely appealing.
My explanation for the gauge mess is simple bloody-minded and parochial insularity. It is a trait I'm afraid is very common in Australia. I know I've discriminated against Queenslanders in the past
Actually it had all been sorted in the early 1850s when an engineer employed by the private company in Sydney (The Sydney Railway Company) decided that he knew better than everyone else.
So there was an early recognition that the systems would eventually meet and it might help if vehicles could run through.
Another version could start "there was an Engishman, an Irishman and a Scot..."
All of the capitals, except Hobart, are linked by standard gauge now, as is Darwin.
OK, so changes are:
Sir William Fox never came to Melbourne and his replacement as first Treasurer can be Robert Stout.
This results in the following changes:
"The First Bray Government (1886-1889)
Following the March 1886 elections, .......
Bray put together a broad coalition that was reflected in his new Cabinet. Julius Vogel retained his post as Attorney General and Senator Sir Henry Parkes was retained as Vice President of the Executive Council. Thomas McIlwraith held on to the External Affairs portfolio and Sir Ayde Douglas remained Postmaster General. Robert Stout was promoted to Home Affairs. The new faces at the Cabinet table were: George Dibbs of New South Wales, who took the position of Trade & Customs Minister; and James Dickson, who was named as the first Defence Minister and chairman of the Council of National Defence....."
I am also adding to the text for Bray's first Government the following addendum:
The ban on blackbirding came into effect in 1887 as well. The shortage of labour that appeared likely to result in the sugar fields led to reflection as to how the gap might be filled. The Bray Government agreed to introduce the “indenture system”, which fell in line generally with the 1864 British regulations quite easily. Recruits had to appear before British magistrates in their own region to obtain permission. Recruiters had to be licensed by the Protector of Emigrants and were paid by salary, not commission. However, these were quickly overhauled and resulted in the “Australasian indenture system”. Its rules were as follows:
With indentureship, Australasia effectively developed a two-tier immigration system, where the right to live freely upon your arrival was determined by the colour of your skin. European Caucasians were acceptable; British subjects from other parts of the world could prove they were of decent and hardy Australasian stock by ten years' hard labour in the tropics. Needless to say, Chinese were not welcome to apply.
Most of the migrants who came across the seas to work in North Queensland, Northern Australia, Papua New Guinea and the islands were from sub-continental Asia. It is estimated that, over the course of the next thirty years until the termination of the indenture program, nearly 150,000 Indian migrants would make their way to Australasia on the program.
Sir William Fox never came to Melbourne and his replacement as first Treasurer can be Robert Stout.
This results in the following changes:
"The First Bray Government (1886-1889)
Following the March 1886 elections, .......
Bray put together a broad coalition that was reflected in his new Cabinet. Julius Vogel retained his post as Attorney General and Senator Sir Henry Parkes was retained as Vice President of the Executive Council. Thomas McIlwraith held on to the External Affairs portfolio and Sir Ayde Douglas remained Postmaster General. Robert Stout was promoted to Home Affairs. The new faces at the Cabinet table were: George Dibbs of New South Wales, who took the position of Trade & Customs Minister; and James Dickson, who was named as the first Defence Minister and chairman of the Council of National Defence....."
I am also adding to the text for Bray's first Government the following addendum:
The ban on blackbirding came into effect in 1887 as well. The shortage of labour that appeared likely to result in the sugar fields led to reflection as to how the gap might be filled. The Bray Government agreed to introduce the “indenture system”, which fell in line generally with the 1864 British regulations quite easily. Recruits had to appear before British magistrates in their own region to obtain permission. Recruiters had to be licensed by the Protector of Emigrants and were paid by salary, not commission. However, these were quickly overhauled and resulted in the “Australasian indenture system”. Its rules were as follows:
- Any recruit would be required to contract for a period of at least five years from the date of their arrival in the tropical zones of Australasia;
- The recruit would, in that time, take no employment beyond plantation work;
- The recruit could not undercut the standard wage for their area of employment;
- The recruit could return at their own expense after five years or, if he and his employer agreed, would be permitted to sign a second contract of five years;
- Upon completion of ten years, the recruit would be entitled to one free return passage to their originating region of the Empire;
- The recruit would also be given residency papers at that time which allowed them to be employed in a field outside plantation work in any part of Australasia.
With indentureship, Australasia effectively developed a two-tier immigration system, where the right to live freely upon your arrival was determined by the colour of your skin. European Caucasians were acceptable; British subjects from other parts of the world could prove they were of decent and hardy Australasian stock by ten years' hard labour in the tropics. Needless to say, Chinese were not welcome to apply.
Most of the migrants who came across the seas to work in North Queensland, Northern Australia, Papua New Guinea and the islands were from sub-continental Asia. It is estimated that, over the course of the next thirty years until the termination of the indenture program, nearly 150,000 Indian migrants would make their way to Australasia on the program.
EARLY AUSTRALASIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1883-1891)
Members of the Court
The Rt Hon Chief Justice Sir Charles Gavan Duffy GCMG PC (1884-1903) pictured
The Rt Hon Justice Sir James Prendergast GCMG (1884-1899)
The Hon Justice Sir Charles Lilley CMG (1884-1896)
The Rt Hon Justice Sir James Service CMG (1889-1899)
The Hon Justice Sir Samuel Way GCMG PC (1889-1916), 1st Baronet of Montefiore
Originally, it was the opinion of most of Australasia’s politicians was that the new High Court would be a prestigious retirement bonus, a somewhat redundant institution. However, in its first judgement, the Court granted to itself vast powers by declaring that they had appellate jurisdiction over all State court.
In 1887, the Court strongly curtailed the taxation power of the States, by declaring that a “customs tax” was anything which fell on a product prior to the point of consumption. All taxes on manufacture and distribution now fell, under the trade and customs power, within the constitutional purview of the Commonwealth. A few months later, the justices declared that the Federal Government’s officers were required to obey State law unless there was a Federal law overriding it, including the payment of State sales tax. In this way, the fiscal balance of the new federation was struck.
They would, a few years later, be asked to determine if citizens of one State were liable for taxes for actions taken in another State. The Court agreed that they were.
In 1890, an Aboriginal person appeared before the High Court for the first time. A convicted murderer, his representation suggested that, because of the Constitution’s “native affairs” power, indigenous people could only be tried by Federal courts. Their honours threw out the argument as ludicrous, but did extend to themselves more power by declaring that all future cases regarding native people may be justiciable under the power. It was eventually an uncomfortable decision for the judges, particularly over the issue of delivering an oath when a majority were confident that “the poor beasts understand not one whit”. By the end of the century, their honours had decided to accept statutory declarations made either in English or through a competent interpreter.
One thing which was not justiciable was the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement signed on questionable terms between the British and Maori in 1840. The High Court decided that the Treaty only had reference to the State of New Ulster, and that only that State’s court could determine its meaning. “This document is, in legal terms, a simple nullity to this Court,” said Justice Sir James Prendergast. “ It was agreed that the Treaty was not, in any way, binding on the Crown, but that it was legitimate in terms of its extension of sovereignty and “in terms of any general principles found therein which might direct sound governance in New Ulster”.
Appeals from the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Court began in earnest after that body’s founding under the first Liberal government. They upheld each of the ICAC’s decisions in turn, without modification, until the wage case dispute, agreeing that trade unions had a legal right to exist and that employers would not be able to dismiss a worker if the worker joined a trade union. However, they agreed with the ruling that non-violent behaviour by a collective could be interpreted as a violent act against an individual. They declared closed shops “an offence to the basic liberty” and, finally, agreed that there was no common law right to strike.
The last of those decisions would be a cause of disagreement between the two factions of the future Liberal Government and would eventually do much to determine the political evolution of the new nation.
Members of the Court
The Rt Hon Justice Sir James Prendergast GCMG (1884-1899)
The Hon Justice Sir Charles Lilley CMG (1884-1896)
The Rt Hon Justice Sir James Service CMG (1889-1899)
The Hon Justice Sir Samuel Way GCMG PC (1889-1916), 1st Baronet of Montefiore
Originally, it was the opinion of most of Australasia’s politicians was that the new High Court would be a prestigious retirement bonus, a somewhat redundant institution. However, in its first judgement, the Court granted to itself vast powers by declaring that they had appellate jurisdiction over all State court.
In 1887, the Court strongly curtailed the taxation power of the States, by declaring that a “customs tax” was anything which fell on a product prior to the point of consumption. All taxes on manufacture and distribution now fell, under the trade and customs power, within the constitutional purview of the Commonwealth. A few months later, the justices declared that the Federal Government’s officers were required to obey State law unless there was a Federal law overriding it, including the payment of State sales tax. In this way, the fiscal balance of the new federation was struck.
They would, a few years later, be asked to determine if citizens of one State were liable for taxes for actions taken in another State. The Court agreed that they were.
In 1890, an Aboriginal person appeared before the High Court for the first time. A convicted murderer, his representation suggested that, because of the Constitution’s “native affairs” power, indigenous people could only be tried by Federal courts. Their honours threw out the argument as ludicrous, but did extend to themselves more power by declaring that all future cases regarding native people may be justiciable under the power. It was eventually an uncomfortable decision for the judges, particularly over the issue of delivering an oath when a majority were confident that “the poor beasts understand not one whit”. By the end of the century, their honours had decided to accept statutory declarations made either in English or through a competent interpreter.
One thing which was not justiciable was the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement signed on questionable terms between the British and Maori in 1840. The High Court decided that the Treaty only had reference to the State of New Ulster, and that only that State’s court could determine its meaning. “This document is, in legal terms, a simple nullity to this Court,” said Justice Sir James Prendergast. “ It was agreed that the Treaty was not, in any way, binding on the Crown, but that it was legitimate in terms of its extension of sovereignty and “in terms of any general principles found therein which might direct sound governance in New Ulster”.
Appeals from the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Court began in earnest after that body’s founding under the first Liberal government. They upheld each of the ICAC’s decisions in turn, without modification, until the wage case dispute, agreeing that trade unions had a legal right to exist and that employers would not be able to dismiss a worker if the worker joined a trade union. However, they agreed with the ruling that non-violent behaviour by a collective could be interpreted as a violent act against an individual. They declared closed shops “an offence to the basic liberty” and, finally, agreed that there was no common law right to strike.
The last of those decisions would be a cause of disagreement between the two factions of the future Liberal Government and would eventually do much to determine the political evolution of the new nation.
Last edited:
I see you have kept Wi Parata v. the Bishop of Wellington's treaty nullity argument intact.
If you haven't already, take a look at the below link, it is a useful high level overview of treaty litigation from Lord Cooke of Thorndon, now deceased, who wrote the leading opinion on the most important recent Treaty cases (NZ Maori Council etc). He also was elevated to the Privy Council and given the title, where Thorndon is the suburb that the government district is situated in Wellington.
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/waikato_law_review/volume_2_1994/2
If you haven't already, take a look at the below link, it is a useful high level overview of treaty litigation from Lord Cooke of Thorndon, now deceased, who wrote the leading opinion on the most important recent Treaty cases (NZ Maori Council etc). He also was elevated to the Privy Council and given the title, where Thorndon is the suburb that the government district is situated in Wellington.
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/waikato_law_review/volume_2_1994/2
Some questions about international situation changes caused by the POD of the Australasian Federation.
As you say New Guinea is now an Australasian Territory, so if I understand correctly, all New Guinea is Australasian? No German New Guinea so? and naturally Archipelago of Bismarck is no named Bismarck?
Also although I know that is probably to foresee future events, how could this "Australasian Empire" (sorry for the term empire, but it seems as you say that Australasia considers the islands of the South Seas as their playing garden) affect the facts of the German-Spanish Treaty of 1899?
If we assume that Spanish-American war more or less follows the same path (and sadly I assume that this is the most plausible path) so we could assume that the spanish will want to buy the Caroline islands, but without German New Guinea the germans would have little logic in trying to adquire the islands.
So Is it possible that Australasia decides to buy the islands to Spain?
As you say New Guinea is now an Australasian Territory, so if I understand correctly, all New Guinea is Australasian? No German New Guinea so? and naturally Archipelago of Bismarck is no named Bismarck
?Also although I know that is probably to foresee future events, how could this "Australasian Empire" (sorry for the term empire, but it seems as you say that Australasia considers the islands of the South Seas as their playing garden) affect the facts of the German-Spanish Treaty of 1899?
If we assume that Spanish-American war more or less follows the same path (and sadly I assume that this is the most plausible path) so we could assume that the spanish will want to buy the Caroline islands, but without German New Guinea the germans would have little logic in trying to adquire the islands.
So Is it possible that Australasia decides to buy the islands to Spain?
Last edited:
If I recall correctly some New Zealand politicians were on record as advocating the creation of a New Zealand empire (using that word), as an adjunct to the British Empire. I imagine there were Australians who did the same!
I must say that I hadn't really thought of the long term implications of the South Pacific Mandate/Micronesia etc.
That could really throw the cat amongst the pigeons given what happened there in the 20th century
I must say that I hadn't really thought of the long term implications of the South Pacific Mandate/Micronesia etc.
That could really throw the cat amongst the pigeons given what happened there in the 20th century
This is also an interesting article on Justice Prendergast and the Wi Parata decision. It seems that in some ways Prendergast was oddly liberal: to paraphrase Napoleon, his attitude seems to have been "to the Maori as British subjects, everything; to the Maori as Maori, nothing." That could have some interesting implications for Aboriginal rights in TTL - he won't be sympathetic to any kind of native title or customary sovereignty, but he might rule in favor of their rights as citizens and individual property holders.
He has also left the door open for the New Ulster state courts to decide how much significance the treaty has to state law. Depending on who the state judges are, the treaty might retain more vitality than in OTL, although I have my doubts: in addition to the prevailing social attitudes toward the Maori at that time, it is the norm in common-law countries not to regard treaties as self-executing unless specifically stated, and to require some form of enabling act in order to bring them into force as domestic law. That didn't happen in OTL New Zealand until the 1970s; it might happen earlier in TTL, but probably not in the nineteenth century.
The Spanish islands are a bit far from home for the Australasians. Historically, they concentrated on the southwest Pacific - Melanesia and the nearest parts of Polynesia such as Samoa and the Cook Islands. The bigger, more imperial-minded Australasia of TTL might have bigger dreams, but the Micronesian islands would be far away and expensive to administer. Maybe they'd go for it out of pride, maybe not.
Interesting link JE. I've not really thought a lot about the case in a long while, but when I was going through university we certainly were in the phase of looking askance at Prendergast and indeed even liberals like Stout (e.g Tohunga Suppression Act).
Regarding Prendergast, what could be done etc and how that could unfold, he would probably be a New Munster man given his career started in Dunedin, after arrival from London. I accept that general principle of nullity would have almost certainly occurred either way though, but with a different judge in Prendergast's place
Speaking of interesting characters you could involve Lachsys, how about one James Carroll - son of an Irishman and Maori woman. He had a fair bit of success spanning both societies and obtained a fair amount of influence if his biography is to be believed. He seemed to have butted heads with Wi Parata a bit too!
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2c10/carroll-james
Some questions about international situation changes caused by the POD of the Australasian Federation.
As you say New Guinea is now an Australasian Territory, so if I understand correctly, all New Guinea is Australasian? No German New Guinea so? and naturally Archipelago of Bismarck is no named Bismarck
Also although I know that is probably to foresee future events, how could this "Australasian Empire" (sorry for the term empire, but it seems as you say that Australasia considers the islands of the South Seas as their playing garden) affect the facts of the German-Spanish Treaty of 1899?
If we assume that Spanish-American war more or less follows the same path (and sadly I assume that this is the most plausible path) so we could assume that the spanish will want to buy the Caroline islands, but without German New Guinea the germans would have little logic in trying to adquire the islands.
So Is it possible that Australasia decides to buy the islands to Spain?
In general, I do not see Australasia wanting the islands except to deny them to somebody else. I would imagine that they may end up in US or Japanese hands. Given that Australasia won't be as hostile to Asians generally and Japan is a British ally, it may be something they would tolerate in this timeline. Of course, a US claim would pose no problem. I'm uncertain about the inclusion of Samoa; maybe the US would relinquish its claim to Samoa in return for British purchasing and handing over the Spanish islands, and then Samoa would join other British colonies in gradually drifting into Australasia. The Dutch will probably settle their part of New Guinea slightly faster than in OTL, but not in any noticeable way. I welcome your continued thoughts.
In future development of the nation, by the current day and provided they survive as part of the country, the whole arc from eastern New Guinea down to New Zealand will be under Australasian sovereignty, plus probably those islands currently under New Zealand sovereignty. What this effectively means is the consultations which now take place in the Pacific Islands Forum will take place on the floor of the Australasian Parliament and the Australians would have to listen to what was said or no Government would be able to get a majority. So, yes, this does throw a cat among the pigeons.
The attitude towards the various non-white populations can be summarised as a feeling that the States had disastrously got it wrong by failing to make them productive members of white society. Aboriginal, Maori and other indigenous peoples are, at this time, at their lowest ebb in terms of population, so no judge is going to pay their particular heed. The High Court's motivation in taking power over "natives" has little to do with natives and more to do with expansion of appellate jurisdiction. The social Darwinism of the white population has not been diluted as yet.
The declaration of New Ulster's jurisdiction over the Treaty is more to do with the Court saying, we want to control the rights of natives, but we don't want to have to pay attention to that document if we don't want to. I can't imagine New Ulster judges or politicians in this timeline being particularly sympathetic defending the rights of non-assimilated Maoris, but the precedent has been established that will allow a future reconciliation.
As far as Australia's concern, it will mean that Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islanders and others living above the Tropic of Capricorn will be able to enjoy a fairly traditional lifestyle, but those living below that will move from the era of enclosed reserves to the beginning of the Stolen Generation, where "native children" will be removed from those who decline to assimilate into the dominant society. It's not a great outcome, I'm the first to admit, but I think most positive of all realistically possible outcomes.
On the subject of the Indian population mentioned in the amendments, this means that approximately one in every twenty-five Australasian citizens (or about 4%) will be of Indian ancestry. That will have an interesting effect I'm sure, but would welcome your thoughts.
Also thinking, Australasia literally means "South Asia". I referred to India as sub-continental Asia in the post because I think that, with about 20% of the population being Asian by our time, that the Australian continent and surrounds might actually be called South Asia. Again, welcome comments.
Also thinking, Australasia literally means "South Asia". I referred to India as sub-continental Asia in the post because I think that, with about 20% of the population being Asian by our time, that the Australian continent and surrounds might actually be called South Asia. Again, welcome comments.