New Zealand under Australian Rule

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by kernals12, Aug 25, 2019.

  1. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    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?
     
    Beacon, Swede and Zagan like this.
  2. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / 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?
     
  3. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    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.
     
    Swede, TimTurner, Ciniad and 2 others like this.
  4. Marc reformed polymath... Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Location:
    The left coast...
    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.
     
    P L Richards likes this.
  5. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    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?
     
  6. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Canada's population is about 11% of that of the US. New Zealand's population is almost 20% of Australia's.
     
  7. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    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?
     
  8. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Australia had 3.2 million in 1891, New Zealand had 670,000, so just over 1/5th
     
  9. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Do we know what the stumbling blocks to the merger were?
     
  10. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Here's what the New Zealand government says
     
  11. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    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.
     
    Quintuplicate and Hrvatskiwi like this.
  12. Mr_Fanboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Was the difference so huge in 1891, at least as compared to the cultural differences within Australia itself?
     
  13. Mr_Fanboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    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.
     
    mrmandias, Swede, Hrvatskiwi and 7 others like this.
  14. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    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.
     
  15. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    Well, this is a more realistic scenario for a change :winkytongue:.
    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?
     
  16. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Minimum 2 states for greater representation. Same with western. In some ways a way to dilute eastern Australia power.
     
    The Professor likes this.
  17. Napoleone the Kiwi Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    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.
     
  18. Wendell Wendell

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Location:
    Lost in what might have been
    New Zealand would be one state, not two, were it part of Australia.
     
  19. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Why would you be so sure, for representation purposes I would think they would want to be two. Therefore they get twice the representation
     
  20. Wendell Wendell

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Location:
    Lost in what might have been
    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.
     
    P L Richards likes this.