Well I'd obviously figure out the navy bit, but I think the long distances in communication would've spurred on some interesting development in communiciations in Australia. Look to Canada as an example. A lot of it is well spread out, especially in Northern Canada, so in that case that was a spur to satellite technology (i.e. the ANIK system, though the NIMIQ system could be viewed in this way even though it's Bell Canada property), which allowed even people in the most isolated of areas to remain in touch with the outside world. I would've thought the same would be true of Australia.
WI Fiji were a part of Australia?
- Thread starter Dan1988
- Start date
- Status
Well, like I said, if Australia had to deal with long distances for communications already, I'd doubt adding Fiji into the mix would have done much to quicken satellite development. You see it's all about politics. Satellites, until recently, was a Federal Government only concern. It was out of bounds for businesses. In fact only one telcommunications company operated in Australia until about 20 years ago. So it was a government monopoly.
The next thing is, even with Fiji included, something like 75% of the Australian population would still live in the south-eastern triangle, with Newcastle at the top, Melbourne at the bottom, & Adeliade to the west. And, like everything else in Australia, even today, if you don't live in that triangle, tough luck as it's not worth chasing the the votes most of the time (unless the election is real close).
Now in 2007 things have changed a bit as places like Brisbane has grown in population, as has Perth, but again outside of these other two areas, the rest of Australia is ignored for the most part, which is something Tasmania is often complaining about. Needless to say all of these "outsider" regions would pretty much ignored throughout the 1950s-60s. So Fiji, in this respect, would end up like Tasmania, a rather forgotten part of Australia regardless of the fact that it is a state. About the only hope is that the Senators from Tasmania & Fiji unite their numbers & kick up a fuss, but once political party discipline kicks in, such tactics in the Senate would be few & far between.
^ Hmm, so could there be a political party developing in which part of their platform would be to bring the "regions" of Australia (which would include those areas that are ignored, like Tasmania and Fiji) out of being ignored and have their concerns addressed? Who knows, part of this might include some serious electoral reform.
Also, how could the Federal government bring businesses into the development of satellites earlier?
Also, how could the Federal government bring businesses into the development of satellites earlier?
There is already the "outside" regions party. It's currently called the National Party, but previously it was called the Country Party. It's been around since the 1910s & was created for pretty much the purpose of representing, as the name suggests, the rural regions otherwise ignored. It has been in coalition with first the United Australia Party, & then when it collapsed, the rebuilt Liberal Party. Yet, regardless of representation in both the Senate & House, its still ignored for the most part, whilst its senior partner has done the governing.
As for electoral reforms - well that kind of happens all the time with either Senate & House numbers increasing along with redrawing the boundaries every election. But essentially it simply comes down to numbers. With 75% of the population living within a confined area means they get 75% of the seats in the House. Considering government is formed in the House, the others get ignored for the most part. Only in the Senate, as I said, could matters get tricky. So the only hope there is, if you add in the Fijian Senators, could they tip the balance away from the New South Wales, Victoria, & South Australia control. But all this is in the early stages of Federation. Once the parties have firmly established themselves, party discipline will become stronger. So come caucus meetings, of the respective parties, & the 75% will dictate to the remaining ones, party policy. Then all members of that party, even the Senators from the minor states, have to tow the party line.
You couldn't in Australia. All parties, even the so-called pro-business Liberal Party (the party of government throguhout the 1950s & 1960s), were adamant that telecommunications was of national concern & only the Federal government had the right to operate such things - from the phone in your house, to radiowave phone transmitters, to satellites. You name it, come the phone system, the government owned & ran it. You couldn't even own your phone at one time: it had to be leased from the government's telecommunication company.
Ironically it took the so-called "socialist" Labor Governments of Hawke then Keating (mid 1980s-mid 1990s), even though they were hardly socialist, to introduce reforms in stages:
1) You could own your phone
2) You could put extra lines in your house/building using a private technican.
3) The introduction of private phone companies (but they had to use the government owned phone lines)
4) Other phone companies could then introduce their own phone lines, but this was economically prohibitive.
5) The government began to partially privatise their own telecommunications company including their exclusive ownership/rights to satelites.
Yet even today the govt still owns part of their old telecommuncations company & still has the last say over satellites.
Last edited:
I'd hate to offer a level of acceptance, but in 1900 it'd probably be something like this:
At the bottom of the list are Aboriginals
Next at the bottom would be Chinese
Because Fijians & Maoris kind of look like Aboriginals, they'd come in third.
Indians, for whatever reason I've never understood, would be the most acceptable of these groups.
Pathetic I know, & sadly it still goes on in my country
Thought I'd reply to this thread as it's of particular interest to me (I'm Australia but I'm half-Anglo half native Fijian.
Whilst I can see the reason for why you've placed the races in that particular hierachy I think it would be somewhat different.
In Fiji OTL both in 1900 and today the 'hierachy of races' is basically like this:
Top: Europeans, Chinesse and part-Europeans
Middle: Native Fijians
Bottom: Indians
This particular hierachy comes from the colonial history of Fiji. Most agricultural land was (and still is) owned by native Fijians and it is largely leased to white and part-European sugar cane plantation farmers. There are smaller Indian sugar farmers, but these are basically small farms. The Chinese are largely urban-based shopkeepers and merchants.
Native Fijians were (and still are) largely either landlords (small elite) or in the military, police or other public service jobs. Indo-Fijians were in 1900 largely indentured labourers and nowadays are still mainly labourers in private industry or shopkeepers.
The above system ensured that there was and still is a strong relationship between whites and native Fijians (as the natives had a vested interest in continued white presence). In the 1960's it was primarily Indians who led the charge towards independence, with a surprisinly high level of indifference from natives (compared to say Africa for instance).
I'm not sure how this would be translated into this ATL, however I would think that native Fijians would be more comfortable with the merger than the Indians. Of course this depends on the extent to which the 'cosy' relationship between whites and natives is continued (esp regarding land ownership). Of course the Aust constitution until 1967 allowed 'natives policy' to be determined on a state level so this could occur. It certainly would cause problems after 1967 OTL.
Considering the very seperate issues regarding Fiji I wonder the extent to which 'asymetrical federalism' could have emerged as a solution. Say, for example in Canada how Quebec has an asymetric relationship to Ottawa compared to the other states. Certainly if this occurs I think it would be only natural for New Zealand to merge. (Even regardless of the Fiji ATL I've often thought that any NZ merger might involve a degree of asymetric federalism as NZ would want to maintain its status as a 'distinct society'.
Alex Richards
Donor
Dude, it's been 7 years since the last post. You're better just posting a new thread on the topic and trying to generate discussion that way.
- Status