Mistress of the Southern Seas

I wonder if this could be the place to experiment with odd constitutional structures or arrangements that may have less than noble goals? Sort of like the Maori seats in NZ (noble and not so much, but on balance largely being a good thing in hindsight).

I wonder if all the non white areas that could be gobbled up could be treated as associated states, where the areas/zones/colonies/administrative districts are given representation in the Upper House (but perhaps not initially on a voting basis if that would help sell it), then this acts as a starting wedge to convert to proper representation for those areas later on.
 
My thinking is that the Constitution will be very similar to Australia's in OTL, except that obviously the Federal Government will be a lot more active in indigenous issues and there will be more States and Territories. Longer term, I'm thinking something similar to a post I did on this a while back where there will be nine States for most of the early 20th Century:

NSW, VIC, NM, QLD, NU, AU (Auralia - which is the name that WA will take in TTL), SA, TAS and NQ (differing rules north of the Tropic solidify into a State division). There will also be a number of Territories.

Under Australian law, States have the right to greater amounts of representation than Territories. Many indigenous people will live in the Territories, so they will automatically have less representation by virtue of their location. Even to grant them an equal vote with whites in the Territories would mean they still get less representation. EDIT: For the record, States get six Senate votes, whilst the Territories get one. So, Australasia at founding has 42 State senators and two Territory senators (WA, Fiji). By 1900, it has 54 State senators and another five/six Territory senators (North Australia, New Guinea, Fiji, Capital Territory, maybe Samoa or the Solomons). That would mean a House of Representatives of about 120 members, which, at a rough guesstimate, is about one district for every 20,000 voters.

However, I think that, around the 1950s, you would see some of the Territories that have been kept Territories because of their large indigenous and non-white populations (a desire to deny them equality) will either become States of Australasia with full rights, or separate nations with full sovereignty. Either way, Australasia will have to deal with issues of colonialism just like every other imperialist power, but that would have been resolved politically and constitutionally (though probably not socially) well before the modern-day.
 
Last edited:
The Beginnings of the ADF

ww1uniformsb.jpg

Until the 1860s, the only professional soldiers in all of Australasia were the members of the British garrison. By the time of the Maori Wars, however, there were an increasing number of Australasian soldiers who served in colonial units of the British Army. By the time that the British garrisons began to withdraw in 1870, the colonies had already begun to agree on the creation of a regular force of infantry and artillery. The chief consultant appointed by the British Government to assist the Australasian colonies was Major General William Jervois, later the nation’s first Governor General, who created battalions, arranged payment to volunteer militia units and land grants to officers and established a professional cadre of Australasian-born “permanent staff”. This organisation was credited with enabling the young nation to prevent German imperial ambitions in Australasian New Guinea.

In 1881, two years before the Federation of the colonies, the artillery forces were united as the Royal Australasian Artillery Regiment. The years following Federation saw enormous nationalistic fervour, particularly over the New Guinea Crisis, and the colonial infantry grew rapidly from nearly 10,000 troops and militia to over 28,000 men. Growing concern about a possible Russian attack during the middle of the decade also added to a sense of national alarm.

After the British military reported on delays in receiving Australasian troops during the Sudan Campaign, the Imperial Government dispatched Major General Bevan Edwards to examine the state of new Australasian Armed Forces. His report to London praised the initiative of the new Government in its attempts to standardise weapons, training, new khaki uniforms and other equipment. He noted a strong unified force of infantry, artillery, cavalry and engineers. He praised the decision made by the Canadian and Australasian government to cooperate on the laying of a submarine cable between them via Fiji, and to build the telegraph link to the Cocos Islands.

He reported that Australasian troops were equipped with Martini-Henry service rifles and argued they should move quickly to the new bolt-action Lee Metfords. He noted that the field artillery was reasonably dated and should be improved upon as soon as possible, as should revolvers, given that many were either the obsolete Beaumont-Adams revolver.

However, the General was very concerned about the lack of coordination in the Australasian rail system. It had become apparent early in the rail era that the colonies did not have the population to support privately-owned rail networks. The issue of railways had been significant after Queensland had introduced “narrow-gauge” at the beginning of the construction on the Brisbane-Toowoomba line in 1865. The Australasian Intercolonial Conference agreed the following year to change the entire country to “standard-gauge”. The standard gauge was adopted for use in Auralia, New South Wales, Queensland, New Ulster, New Munster and Tasmania, but South Australia and Victoria persisted with broad gauge. The problem became obvious when in 1883, the year of Federation, the broad gauge of Victoria and the standard gauge of New South Wales met in the city of Albury on the Murray River.

Major General Edwards noted that Prime Ministers Service and Bray had both twisted political arms in an attempt to get an agreement to gradually replace Victoria’s and South Australia’s railways at federal cost. He believed that Australasian troops were delayed in transit to battle by these breaks of gauge and that the Imperial Government should give priority in assisting the new country to identify priority lines for replacement. He suggested that relaying the new line from Wodonga to Melbourne was the priority, followed by the Adelaide-Port Pirie-Broken Hill line. Finally, he pointed out that the mainland of the country was simply indefensible unless Australasian troops could swiftly mobilise and concentrate their numbers.

Edwards also consulted on naval forces with Rear Admiral Henry Fairfax, the Commander-in-Chief of the Australia Station (whose position was handed over to an Australasian as part of Edwards’ reforms), who reflected a belief that the new Federal government was wasting resources as it focused on building a series of useless torpedo boats. He suggested that the Imperial Government should order and build the ships the British believed were necessary for Australasian defence and to make the Federal Government pay off the bill. The British would continue to control operations of Australia Station, with much of the cost borne by the former colonies, for the next four years, when Australasians would take over command within imperial structure. As far as the British were concerned, the Canadians were growing in such numbers they could supplement the British Army; the Australasians could similarly supplement the Royal Navy.

The first vessel of the Royal Australasian Navy of any note arrived in Sydney on 24 April 1890. HMAS Australasia was an Orlando-class Royal Navy armoured cruiser, purchased by the Federal Government for £300,000. Many of the recommendations of the report were adopted by the Federal Government, including that the armed forces should grow towards 40,000 by the decade’s end, but they were not fully implemented until the late 1890s.

ww1uniformsb.jpg
 
Last edited:
Does Gallipoli still occur in TTL? ITTL, it might be an impetus to Australasia to become more independent of Britain (given that, IOTL, over 24,000 soldiers from both Australia and New Zealand combined died in the campaign) in its affairs.

Looking forward to the next update.
 
In-teresting. :)

Thanks!

Does Gallipoli still occur in TTL? ITTL, it might be an impetus to Australasia to become more independent of Britain (given that, IOTL, over 24,000 soldiers from both Australia and New Zealand combined died in the campaign) in its affairs.

Looking forward to the next update.

World War I will still occur and I imagine that Australasia will be called on to make sacrifices, but what those will be, I don't know.

By the way, what was the specific POD for this timeline?

Cheers,
Ganesha

The POD would be the inclusion of the New Zealanders in the 1856 Intercolonial Conference and the agreement at that meeting to make it an annual event. That means we instantly move from three AIC meetings between 1856 and 1870 to fourteen AIC meetings. Each successive agreement bound the ties.
 

Pangur

Donor
A decent Army and the start of a good navy nice and early? Yeah you rock man! At a guess that should give Aussie and NZ a really mature stable armed forces by 1914.
 
A decent Army and the start of a good navy nice and early? Yeah you rock man! At a guess that should give Aussie and NZ a really mature stable armed forces by 1914.

I have a younger mate here in my hometown for whom I wrote that instalment. However, thinking about the Edwards Report, I realised I could fix some problems early on. I think the Australasians will happily fund the imperial war machine if they are getting what they want out of it, this Federal government will have a bit more revenue than the OTL Australian one, due to the customs tax decision by the High Court. So, with very occasional disputes over the cost of particular items that Britain decides we need, I suspect it will go on that way until the Second World War.

The armed forces will have a good twenty years to prepare for the First World War, but, at the early stage at least, that just means making sure they have the right equipment so that they can fight alongside the British, Canadians and later, South Africans. I would be interested in what effect Australasian activity will have on Canada, if any, but I certainly feel that the two dominions would be looking to each other for ideas and policies, just as they both look to the United Kingdom.

As a sovereign nation that has had more border threats than New Zealand will ever face, Australia has strongly favoured bilateral initiatives with what are termed "great and powerful friends". It is my suspicion of course that, by the modern day, that won't be Britain any more, but that at least three countries would be considered "sires" to the "mistress" (USA, India, China). Whether the inclusion of New Zealand, I don't know that the policy would disappear, but Australasia may develop a more multilateral approach at times as a result of its broader population and larger scope of operations.
 

Pangur

Donor
A few suggestions. Re Canada; a close relationship would make perfect sense. Perhaps they share the costs of medium ship development? In regards to head start for the army, surely it would have bigger consequences, in as far as it would be easier to see the Aussies fight under their own senior leadership in ww1 from the word go. maybe be even tasked to handle the war in the Asia and Africa?
 
I would think the state governments may retain a fair bit more autonomy ITTL, given that it would seem unlikely the two NZ states would be very agreeable to long term seizures by the federal government. Hard to see how it would be practical to run a spread out and lightly populated federation along tight centralising rules
 
A few suggestions. Re Canada; a close relationship would make perfect sense. Perhaps they share the costs of medium ship development? In regards to head start for the army, surely it would have bigger consequences, in as far as it would be easier to see the Aussies fight under their own senior leadership in ww1 from the word go. maybe be even tasked to handle the war in the Asia and Africa?
John Monash gets his wish earlier? Commander of the AIF.
 
Originally posted by LacheyS
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.

I was thinking that a possible candidate for buy the islands could be France, The United States not seemed too much interested in OTL (they take Guam but the rest of the islands were not reclaimed so I suppose they dont want to made the costs for administrate the rest of the islands), Japan is in TTL I suppose like OTL more concentrated in Korea and China at this time, the germans without New Guinea would not have I suppose a logical reason for buy the islands, and the british ehem, if there is a potence that in the thinking of Spain favoured the americans in the Spanish-American War it was the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement), so I dont know if the british could be interested but I think that Spain would try to sell the islands to anyone except the United Kingdom.

So Could be France could be interested, they have experience in the administration of the islands in Oceania and also reduce the distance for communication with the French Indochina and Kwang-Chou-Wan, also there are another circumstances that could made easier for France to buy these islands (if the french are interested naturally), apart of the logistic to reduce the sailing to Indochina and Kwang-Chou-Wan and to add more islands to her Oceania Empire, the possibility that the Fashoda crisis could more or less go in the way than in OTL in TTL made interesting for Spain to offer the islands to France that seems not have too much friendship with Britain, also Britain could not pose any objection to this treat in the aim of also offering some compensation for the theme of Fashoda.

I think France could be an interesting candidate for buy the islands in TTL.
 
Last edited:
The Ballance Government (1890-93)

John_Ballance.jpg

The Liberal Party quickly consolidated its hold on power and, from the 1892 election, would hold a majority in the House of Representatives. The new Senate President and Postmaster General was Sir William Lyne (NSW). Senator John Quick of Victoria became the new Attorney General. Robert Stout was named as External Affairs Minister, Frederick Holder as Treasurer; and Sir Edward Braddon as Home Affairs Minister. In Trade and Customs was the new powerbroker of the Liberal Party, George Reid. In Defence came the new Victorian giant, Alfred Deakin. Julius Vogel retained a position as Minister without Portfolio and Vice President of the Council. The Cabinet was made solely of Liberal Party members, but many others outside the Party had deeply-involved sympathies with the cause of liberalism.

Ballance immediately recognised the emerging economic challenge created by trade unionism and sought to contain the problem by adding a Department of Labour and Industry. H B Higgins of Victoria took on the role. Higgins was authorised to inspect and examine working conditions and his efforts gave rise to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a pseudo-judicial body which would attempt to negotiate industrial disputes and, failing to do so, impose orders on employers and unions. The new minister was the dominant face of the Government over the next few years as he sought to build a modern industrial relations system. New working conditions relating to safety, protection of children and accident compensation were all key successes for the Commission prior to its better-known “fair wage” case of 1896.

Ballance’s industrial policy saw off two major threatened strikes. The first, in August 1890, was brought by the Mercantile Marine Officers Association, which had recently joined up to the then-new National Trades Hall Council (later, the Australasian Council of Trade Unions, or “ACTU”) and was calling for a pay rise of £1 each for their workers. Following arbitration by the Commission, employers eventually conceded that the increase in pay was overdue and well justified.

The second was a challenge from the National Union of Shearers, with wool being Australasia’s largest export and industry at the time. In January 1891, an attempt at anti-union action by some pastoral stations in Queensland resulted in union retaliation before the Commission intervened, upholding the right of employers to hire non-union labour but not their right to exclude union labour. It also wholly supported the right of trade unions to organise. However, the Commission ruled that there was no “right to strike” and there was disagreement over this issue within the Liberal Government. The difference of opinion would widen over the coming years until the eventual split of the Liberal Party, with union rights being a key issue in that split.

The Ballance Government oversaw a period of growing economic instability in Australasia. The previous decade had been an economic boom, with Melbourne becoming the second largest city in the Empire, and it had largely been based on foreign speculation in the Australasian property market. There was no central bank and no deposit guarantees, with a completely free banking environment. The influx of capital had given Australasians the highest per capita income in the world and commercial banks lent heavily, but by 1889, asset prices had begun to fall. By the time Ballance took government, the first small banks were already beginning to leak money and the threat of strikes by the maritime union were causing uncertainty.

The following year, the discovery of gold in Western Australia managed to temporarily boost confidence in the Australasian market and returns in New Munster were continuing to pay off. Western Australia even renamed itself Auralia, as the gold continued to be uncovered. However, the eastern mainland’s growth had become decidedly sluggish and, in 1891, the first banks began to fail. The rate of the collapse worsened over 1892, but Ballance survived the election of that year with his parliamentary leadership intact.

The 1892 election was concurrent with the first referendum to amend the Australasian Constitution, extending the power of the Commonwealth to take over the troublesome emerging state debts. A similar independent referendum was held in 1894 to increase the Federal Government’s authority over corporations and trusts, confirming the power over intra-state industrial disputes involving railways and granting permission to nationalise monopolies. All propositions were carried in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and New Ulster, with New Munster and South Australia making out the majority in individual cases. In Queensland and Auralia, every single referendum proposition was rejected.

However, by 1893, the world was in the grips of a financial crisis and collapsing financial institutions became the centre of focus. The largest institution to fail, the Federal Bank of Australasia, toppled in February of that year and many companies and financial institutions simply ceased to trade. The economy was not the only thing in ill health; the Prime Minister passed away in late April after surgery on his intestine at the age of 54. He was thus the first Australasian Prime Minister to die in office.

John_Ballance.jpg
 
A few suggestions. Re Canada; a close relationship would make perfect sense. Perhaps they share the costs of medium ship development? In regards to head start for the army, surely it would have bigger consequences, in as far as it would be easier to see the Aussies fight under their own senior leadership in ww1 from the word go. maybe be even tasked to handle the war in the Asia and Africa?

This would certainly make things more workable, but it will need a change in British attitude as the Colonial Office was very reluctant to have its colonies building ships. They saw the Royal Navy as backbone of the Empire, and viewed the dominions in particular as being the source of their armies. Also considering how they Canadians were treated during World War I, I don't think the Australasians would get their own independent leadership until sometime during the War.

I would think the state governments may retain a fair bit more autonomy ITTL, given that it would seem unlikely the two NZ states would be very agreeable to long term seizures by the federal government. Hard to see how it would be practical to run a spread out and lightly populated federation along tight centralising rules

The federal government will continue to seize power over the longer-term as the Constitution permits and as States are willing to comply. Quite a bit of this will, in fact, be driven by New Zealand states that want similar legislation at an Australasian level that they achieved in the 1890s under their own central government. So centralisation will happen, quite often driven by Kiwis, but at the moment, there are no Federal taxes other than customs duty (I presume that's what you're taking about), so it makes sense for the High Court, stacked with some leading federalists, to interpret the tax as broadly as possible. I don't know if it operates the same way in NZ, but here, if the HCA makes a decision the Parliament dislikes, the Parliament can just make a law - statute law overrides common law every time.

John Monash gets his wish earlier? Commander of the AIF.

Probably, but see above.

I was thinking that a possible candidate for buy the islands could be France, The United States not seemed too much interested in OTL (they take Guam but the rest of the islands were not reclaimed so I suppose they dont want to made the costs for administrate the rest of the islands), Japan is in TTL I suppose like OTL more concentrated in Korea and China at this time, the germans without New Guinea would not have I suppose a logical reason for buy the islands, and the british ehem, if there is a potence that in the thinking of Spain favoured the americans in the Spanish-American War it was the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement), so I dont know if the british could be interested but I think that Spain would try to sell the islands to anyone except the United Kingdom.

So Could be France could be interested, they have experience in the administration of the islands in Oceania and also reduce the distance for communication with the French Indochina and Kwang-Chou-Wan, also there are another circumstances that could made easier for France to buy these islands (if the french are interested naturally), apart of the logistic to reduce the sailing to Indochina and Kwang-Chou-Wan and to add more islands to her Oceania Empire, the possibility that the Fashoda crisis could more or less go in the way than in OTL in TTL made interesting for Spain to offer the islands to France that seems not have too much friendship with Britain, also Britain could not pose any objection to this treat in the aim of also offering some compensation for the theme of Fashoda.

I think France could be an interesting candidate for buy the islands in TTL.

I like the idea of the French as a candidate for this purchase. Consider it part of the story going forward.
 

katchen

Banned
Katchen

Having lived in Australia for 8 years during the 90s, I'm not so sure that Aussies in TTL would consider the Caroline Islands (or Palau) a bridge too far.For one thing, we're only talking about a land area of maybe 5000 miles and 100,000 people in the Carolines and 60,000 in the Marshalls now, not then. There is a certain logic about occupying all of the islands up until the next stretch of open ocean when the open ocean extends to Japan, Russia and the Aleutians. Especially when Australasia is starting to wonder about a certain overbearing neighbour to the Northeast.
You haven't told us what Australasia's policy is toward a country like Tonga that is a functioning monarchy under British protection, but I would assume that Australasia has assumed these protection obligations. If Tonga federates with Australasia it will be because it's King decides to do so. Otherwise, Australasia has defense obligations to Tonga.
Check this out, but I believe that similar obligations may apply to Hawaii. Scions of Yank missionary families that have become sugar and pineapple barons such as the Doles and the Bishops are trying to destabilize and overthrow Queen Liliokalani, which in 1893, they do, although it is not until 1898 that they succeed in getting Hawaii annexed to the United States. The British had good relations with Hawaii and American actions would have been seen as high handed and something to be countered by 1898, when war between the US and Spain breaks out.
In the Philippines, a rebel government headed by Aguinaldo has established a government over all of the Philippines except for Manila. The Germans have Marines. The Americans have Marines. If the Australasians land Marines and thwart Admiral Dewey, they can hand power to Aguinaldo and establish an independent Phillipines which can be a valuable ally for Great Britain and Australasia, as well as consistent with US actions in Cuba (and everyone now admits, what the US should have done instead of getting itself involved in an atrocious guerrilla colonial war and 40 year occupation). Taking the Caroline and Mariana Islands is the first step toward firmly drawing a line against the US move toward the Philippines and establishing Australia's sphere of influence in the Southern Pacific (the US is still free to expand toward Asia by developing Alaska and via the Aleutians and the Bering Strait without being an overbearing colonial master.).
 
Originally posted by LacheyS
However, by 1893, the world was in the grips of a financial crisis and collapsing financial institutions became the centre of focus. The largest institution to fail, the Federal Bank of Australasia, toppled in February of that year and many companies and financial institutions simply ceased to trade. The economy was not the only thing in ill health; the Prime Minister passed away in late April after surgery on his intestine at the age of 54. He was thus the first Australasian Prime Minister to die in office.

This is bad luck. I expect that this Australasian federation being stronger than Australia OTL could get out of the crisis sooner than OTL.

Originally posted by LacheyS
I like the idea of the French as a candidate for this purchase. Consider it part of the story going forward.

Oh la, la! Vive la Micronésie Française!:):cool:
 
Well NZ is more so I would think, OTL, in that as we have no supreme constitutional terms, a clearly worded statute will over-ride everything else up to and including the prerogative.

Anyway, I guess what I am driving at is I would prefer an *Australasia that was slightly less centralised than OTL. It seems to be a common grip of Australians (that I know anyway, who are mainly expats) that the State governments are practically useless and that is reinforced my reading of Australian constitutional developments.

I think in the case of a wider federation than OTL, the states do need to be slightly more competent if just that the interests of *South Island vs *WA or *Tasmania could be very different from everyone else and it doesn't help in all situations to have a powerful central government. Perhaps more in cases of economic development than other issues. Or in NZ's case, infrastructure. The NZ railways probably work better as a NI/SI unit and whether or not they would be better as a federal railway company is highly debatable.

I have a dislike of systems where the state or local government is in effect a service delivery mechanism for the central government's policy choices. This is not absolute of course, as there are some things that central government usually does better (say human rights law etc).
 
Having lived in Australia for 8 years during the 90s, I'm not so sure that Aussies in TTL would consider the Caroline Islands (or Palau) a bridge too far.For one thing, we're only talking about a land area of maybe 5000 miles and 100,000 people in the Carolines and 60,000 in the Marshalls now, not then. There is a certain logic about occupying all of the islands up until the next stretch of open ocean when the open ocean extends to Japan, Russia and the Aleutians. Especially when Australasia is starting to wonder about a certain overbearing neighbour to the Northeast.
You haven't told us what Australasia's policy is toward a country like Tonga that is a functioning monarchy under British protection, but I would assume that Australasia has assumed these protection obligations. If Tonga federates with Australasia it will be because it's King decides to do so. Otherwise, Australasia has defense obligations to Tonga.
Check this out, but I believe that similar obligations may apply to Hawaii. Scions of Yank missionary families that have become sugar and pineapple barons such as the Doles and the Bishops are trying to destabilize and overthrow Queen Liliokalani, which in 1893, they do, although it is not until 1898 that they succeed in getting Hawaii annexed to the United States. The British had good relations with Hawaii and American actions would have been seen as high handed and something to be countered by 1898, when war between the US and Spain breaks out.
In the Philippines, a rebel government headed by Aguinaldo has established a government over all of the Philippines except for Manila. The Germans have Marines. The Americans have Marines. If the Australasians land Marines and thwart Admiral Dewey, they can hand power to Aguinaldo and establish an independent Phillipines which can be a valuable ally for Great Britain and Australasia, as well as consistent with US actions in Cuba (and everyone now admits, what the US should have done instead of getting itself involved in an atrocious guerrilla colonial war and 40 year occupation). Taking the Caroline and Mariana Islands is the first step toward firmly drawing a line against the US move toward the Philippines and establishing Australia's sphere of influence in the Southern Pacific (the US is still free to expand toward Asia by developing Alaska and via the Aleutians and the Bering Strait without being an overbearing colonial master.).

Wow. Well, I wanted to do a foreign policy outlook over the first 20 years. There will be parts added to Australasia and other places will become protectorates. Essentially, most of Polynesia will remain politically separate from Australasia, but some small parts will be absorbed. I do not see Tonga, Samoa or Hawai'i becoming part of the country, but that doesn't mean that some effort cannot be expended at protecting them. Let's wait and see on Philippines - I have some other posts that are more colour than progress first.

This is bad luck. I expect that this Australasian federation being stronger than Australia OTL could get out of the crisis sooner than OTL.

Oh la, la! Vive la Micronésie Française!:):cool:

Australia went into a downturn at the start of the 1890s. Here, that has been delayed and so the country chugs along with strong growth until the rest of the world drags it down. As such, it should recover pretty much at the same pace as the rest of the world. This shorter recession, rather than a decade of stagnant growth, will delay the rise of the ALP (how long, I don't know, but it could be up until the later half of the first decade of the new century).

Well NZ is more so I would think, OTL, in that as we have no supreme constitutional terms, a clearly worded statute will over-ride everything else up to and including the prerogative.

Anyway, I guess what I am driving at is I would prefer an *Australasia that was slightly less centralised than OTL. It seems to be a common grip of Australians (that I know anyway, who are mainly expats) that the State governments are practically useless and that is reinforced my reading of Australian constitutional developments.

I think in the case of a wider federation than OTL, the states do need to be slightly more competent if just that the interests of *South Island vs *WA or *Tasmania could be very different from everyone else and it doesn't help in all situations to have a powerful central government. Perhaps more in cases of economic development than other issues. Or in NZ's case, infrastructure. The NZ railways probably work better as a NI/SI unit and whether or not they would be better as a federal railway company is highly debatable.

I have a dislike of systems where the state or local government is in effect a service delivery mechanism for the central government's policy choices. This is not absolute of course, as there are some things that central government usually does better (say human rights law etc).

There is no federal railway company. States have the right to make their own laws on any subject they like, including railways. The actual constitutional powers of the new federal government are all enumerated. The High Court cannot give the Federal Government power over railways, because they are a State responsibility, but it can give it power over industrial disputes involving railways because industrial arbitration in disputes which spread over State borders is a federal responsibility.

One of the major features of Australian government is the sight of Prime Ministers attempting to bribe and cajole State Premiers into agreements over areas which have an impact over the whole country but over which the constitution allows the federal government no control. I am the first to admit that many people find the Australian system of government confusing, but I can do a brief consideration of the TTL constitution if that helps non-Aussies.
 
Top