Since this is my first diary entry, and this is an Australian based blog, I thought I'd better start with the issue of Australian union. Yesterday the New Zealand Herald asked for the opinions of its readers on whether New Zealand should join the Australian federation. I disagreed (with one mistake I didn't notice before publishing!):

"New Zealand has almost all of the advantages of being a state of Australia, without actually being one. We can freely travel and work across the Tasman, our exports enter Australia freely and we enjoy a close defence relationship with Australia. Joining the Australian federation would not change any of these things. It would relegate New Zealand to Australian stateship, and more than likely make little differen[ce] to the outlook of New Zealands economy, save billions of federal funds being spent here (which New South Wales and Victoria more than likely wouldn't want to provide)."

Which is of course the nub of the issue. Contrary to popular belief, New Zealand doesn't have the automatic right of entry into the Commonwealth of Australia under their constitution. The other issue is that the smaller states (And by that I mean states in Australia smaller than New Zealand in terms of population - Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland) wouldn't be too happy that their representation was being watered down by another large state.

x-posted on holdenrepublic.org.nz
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • cam . # .
    The other issue NZ would face: is tax autonomy. Au has a horrible vertical tax imbalance where the feds do 80% of taxation and the states are reliant on fed funding for 50% of their budgets. As that article mentioned NZ has all the benefits of being closely tied to Au, a kind of permanent resident federalism, it would be unwise for NZ to give up its tax autonomy.

    cam
  • Tax autonomy: Indeed - or our autonomy to set interest rates.
  • adam . # .
    Good post: Queensland and New Zealand have similar population sizes NZ actually (4m).
  • Queensland v New Zealand: Yeah, we\'ve got roughly the same populations. My understanding of the Australian Constitution is that that would entitle NZ to roughly the same number of Senate seats, something I\'m sure that if pressed none of the smaller states would want.Does State of Origin apply to Australian electoral law? e.g. if I live in Queensland, but came from NSW, can I vote in NSW still?Because if that was the case, then NZ would probably be a larger state than Queensland, in terms of population...
  • cam . # .
    No state of origin: otherwise diasporans would have an easier time of it. Kiwis in Au would vote in whatever electoral district or state they have a permanent address at. Might be a good way of enfranchising many NZers anyway.

    The Senate is supposed to be a \'states\' house that protects the federal character of the constitutional relationship. Where the House of Representatives is supposed to be the national house that represents the national character of the constitution. It is extremely rare (I cannot think of one instance in the last 25 years) where the big states have voted against the small states - or vice versa. So I don\'t think NZ getting equal Senate seats would be an issue.

    cam
  • adam . # .
    Yeah: Qld and NZ would presumably get the same number of seats in the Senate and the House.
  • cam . # .
    Another thing NZ and Qld would have in common: is their unicamerality.

    cam
  • Unicamerality: Yes that\'s true.Many NZers vote in our elections while living overseas (mainly in Australia). Many parties (e.g. NZ Greens) actually run ex-pat campaigns.