Australia Aotearoa

[Sydneyfan]

I posted the below topic in a newsgroup a few months back and it generated a fair bit of discussion, so I thought I'll see what Bigfooty people think of it. I hope I don't earn the wrath of Kiwi Bigfooty people for this post! :)

Some newsgroup readers (mainly Australians) believed the idea had some merit while others (mainly New Zealanders) though it was a stupid idea! Since writing it I've thought of a few changes to my original idea, the main one being:

either abolishing the States and having 30 Provinces (for want of a better word!) across present day Australia and New Zealand (25 in Australia, 5 in New Zealand), which are the second-tier of Government (a cross between a State and a Local Government Area). Provinces would carry all the responsibilities previously held by LGAs as well having its own Police force (though all Laws would be universal across the Nation), but matters such as Education, and Road Rules, would be universal across the nation. The ACT would be one of the the 30 Provinces though would be expanded to incorporate the cities of Queanbeyan, Goulburn, and Yass.
or having 8 States and an expanded ACT, 6 of which are located in Australia (the North and South Islands of NZ each being a State). Though the 6 States in Australia would be reconfigured from the present layout to minimise unnecessary expenses and distances within each State and to remove anomalies such as Broken Hill being in NSW, despite it being 1400+kms form Sydney and only 400-odd kms from Adelaide. For example, one State Capricornia would be all land north of 24degrees South (not the Tropic of Capricorn, so to include cities just below the Trop. of Cap. such as Alice Springs, Longreach, and Gladstone).

Anyway, here's my idea below, what do you reckon?
Does it have merit?
It's an absurd idea?
Or Sydneyfan's got way too much time on his hands?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On and off the topic of Australia and New Zealand becoming the one
nation has been raised and dismissed. Indeed, in preparation for
Australia's Federation, the Dominion of New Zealand was invited to
become a State of Australia but declined. Ever since Australia and New
Zealand's European settlement there has virtually always been a
constant flow of migration between the two. Currently, migration from
New Zealand to Australia exceeds that of Australia to New Zealand at a
ratio of 8:1. In August 2000 through to August 2001, New Zealand
experienced a net loss of 29,100 people to Australia, many moving for
more economic opportunities in Australia.

I believe it would be a good idea for the two nations to become the
one, I know that many will disagree though. The one nation under a
single economy, a Trans Tasman Dollar, no restrictions at all imposed
on movement between Australia and New Zealand, and the one uniform
Federal laws. In the case of sports, in most cases the former
countries would retain their sporting identity eg. the New Zealand All
Blacks and Australian Wallabies, but during the Olympics would compete
under the one nation, same as the sitauation with the United Kingdom.

A Republic of Australia and New Zealand, calling it Australia Aotearoa
(Aotearoa being Maori for Land of the Long White Cloud), and making a
new and distinctive flag for the new nation. It's like killing
several birds with the one stone: many in Australia want a republic
and new flag, New Zealand's considered changing its name to Aotearoa
and would like a stronger economic base. Australia Aotearoa would
become a bigger player against the global economic blocs and could
greater further its tourism opportunities.

New Zealand would be split into two States: Aotearoa (Maori name for North
Island) with Wellington its capital and Auckland its largest city (and
sixth largest in the new nation), and Te Wai Pounamu (Maori name for South Island) with
Christchurch its capital. Australia Aotearoa would have 8 States and 2
Territories, with Canberra the Federal capital.

Australia's current population is 19,164,620 approx. with a GDP per
capita of $22,200 (1999) while New Zealand's current population is
3,792,654 approx. with a GDP per capita of $17,400 (1999). Using these
figures if Australia Aotearoa was formed today the population would be
22,957,274 with a GDP per capita of $21,407.

What do people think, stupid idea or does it have merit?

I believe it has merit.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Ok - I'm a Kiwi (lets get that outta the way first up !)

I don't know about political union, it was certainly a great idea in the 1890's when NZ was first invited to join but in the 100 years since the two countries have grown apart in alot of respects so I think the idea of actually joining the two countries together in a political union is an idea that has gone past its use by date.

NZ nowadays has a different political culture than Australia's, has different interests and seeks different solutions to its problems than Australia does. Also Australia's strategic place in tyhe world is very different from NZ's.

I think economic union is the go - a single currency, no tarriff barriers for trade, free movement of workers between countries, a uniform business and company taxation system, full harmonisation in customs, NZSX and ASX to merge. Commonality in industrial awards, wages and conditions, no restrictions on Australian companies owning NZ ones and vice versa.

All of these measures could be brought in without too much trouble and would really work.

Theres other ways to bring the two countries closer together without full-on political union.

cheers

[Pessimistic]

Funny, Oz has the constitutional 'option' to take over New Zealand but if an asian country (indonesia for example) had the same for us we would scream bloody murder.


That aside I think the commonwealth and state governments should remain but their powers should be redefined.

Their powers and functions would not overlap under my 'system' so a dramtic reduction in numbers would also occur (I can't see them voting for it somehow)

Federal retains national functions like defence but loses all 'services' like health, education, which the states take up. Federal still sets national standards for these but delivery is wholly in the states domain. Federal beaurocracies largely transfer to the states.

The states become much more corporate but legislative power is severely curbed. How ridiculous that one of the largest employers (state government) can legislate to change employment law.
Upper state houses are largely superfluous.

States largely work well so the 30 regions is not a great idea. Recent report said that metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney is largely different from country victoria and NSW. these regions need extra protection form governments dominated by melbourne and sydney political interests. but the 30 regions might be a bit too drastic

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Pessimistic



States largely work well

Tell that to a South Australian

[sbagman]

1. It's an awful name

2. There aren't enough big centres outside the capital cities to warrant divisions into regions.

3. It's a really awful name.

[Player]

New Zealand television has just started a what if in the future series, set each week in 2050, with the first being what if New Zealand has become a state of Australia.

(week two what if New Zealand has recognised Maori sovereignty over New Zealand by 2050).

It was quite good, with a typical Jetsons family going thru typical everyday scenarios. An Electricity blackout, a police car stop, watching sport on TV, etc.

However aside from Auckland going thru a skyscraper boom and getting a computer generated monorail, the show was surprisingly negative.

It asserted that New Zealand is drifting towards some sort of union with Australia anyhow, and that issues should be debated now before it will be impossible to offer any organised resistance in the future if it was then discovered that it would obviously disadvantage New Zealand.

Full union would only occur if New Zealand has "lost faith in its ability to manage its own economic affairs", in this environment, and because of the respective size of each country, New Zealand wouldn't merge with Australia, but in any probable scenario we would be taken over.

Canberra would not be responsive to the needs of New Zealanders, at best imposing an Australian perspective and solution to New Zealand problems, at worst ... This was related to the consequences of ignoring Maori political and social organisation in New Zealand, while in Australia Aborigines have been largely marginalised from any relevant decision making process.

Large industry and big business would migrate to the larger market of Australia, which evidence suggests is happening anyway for access to a larger capital market, resulting in New Zealand exporting many high paying jobs to Australia. New Zealand would become a tourist/service economy, essentially Australia's own version of Hawaii.

New Zealand would lose important skills and abilities, and an ability to be self reliant, with utilities and essential services owned and micro-managed from Australia.

Other Main themes: Defence. New Zealand would have to contribute much more than present to defending Australia's northern border, a region and politic we care or know little about.

Best retort was that if Australia is defeated here New Zealanders will all have to learn an Asian language anyway.

The New Zealand armed forces would be assimilated into the Australian, as command structures and other services wouldn't have to be duplicated in theory the resulting force would be larger, and far more effective.

Police. New Zealanders have high esteem for our police force and something usually bordering on contempt for their Australian counterparts. The fear is the New Zealand police force would lose its unique identity, having Australia's culture imposed on them.

In one chilling scene a typical family was pulled over by a Queensland policeman with a gun, something completely alien to New Zealanders.

Sport, This is obvious a guess, but New Zealand would get a useful cricket team, the All Blacks would play in an Australian domestic state competition, while a lot of Aussie rules was shown.

It was implied by the naysayers that New Zealand would decline into another Tasmania, yet this was rebuffed by the fact that this would involve falling upwards, as their standard of living is apparently higher than New Zealands anyway.

If it came down to a vote, I do not know how I would react. I do not feel like an Australian, nor would I like to be know as an Australian. I guess the long title of Australiasian might rest a little better.

In a trade off between increased economic prosperity for existing political structures I would favour the economy, despite this I am prepared to defend my political liberty as much as the next individual. Bollocks to Australian empire building.

Wellington or Canberra, unless you live in a capital then the concentration of real government tends to be remote affair anyway. Provided I am not obviously disadvantaged or the government hostile to my interests then what really is the difference.

By-the-by New Zealand would have to be one state, (i) splitting them would be seen as an obvious attempt to fracture our political unity, and (ii) the North Island is reliant on the electricity supply from the southern hydrodams.

[Fat Red]

Interesting. I don't think the policing would be much of an issue; police forces are state-based and yours would pretty much continue as is I would think.

[Sydneyfan]

Originally posted by sbagman
1. It's an awful name

2. There aren't enough big centres outside the capital cities to warrant divisions into regions.

3. It's a really awful name.

:D

The name's not that bad is it? :p

We could always abbreviate it to AA, so when you go overseas you can tell them you're an AA, which leaves them to decipher whether you're an Australian Aotearoan or an Alcoholic Anonymous ;)

[topdon]

Simple solution ... declare war on New Zealand. :p

[Porthos]

Originally posted by topdon
Simple solution ... declare war on New Zealand. :p

Warning: Gratuitous New Zealand Sheep Joke Below.





































Or we could engineer a specific form of the AIDS virus that is only transmitted from sheep to humans. They'd all be dead within a couple of months, and we could take over for free :D

[Sydneyfan]

Originally posted by Sydneyfan

or having 8 States and an expanded ACT, 6 of which are located in Australia (the North and South Islands of NZ each being a State). Though the 6 States in Australia would be reconfigured from the present layout to minimise unnecessary expenses and distances within each State and to remove anomalies such as Broken Hill being in NSW, despite it being 1400+kms form Sydney and only 400-odd kms from Adelaide. For example, one State Capricornia would be all land north of 24degrees South (not the Tropic of Capricorn, so to include cities just below the Trop. of Cap. such as Alice Springs, Longreach, and Gladstone). [/list]



I was bored last night so I decided to make a map of a possible re-alignment of Australian States to help even out the populations and sizes of the States somewhat, and also to try to have the respective State Capitals in a relatively central, easily accessible part of the States. It's a pretty difficult task! If you thought the name Australia Aotearoa was a dodgy name look at some of the doosies I came up with for the new State names! I guesstimated the new Australian States' populations, judging on Australia's current population of nearly 19.4 million.
Here's what I came up with:

Possible Re-Alignment of Australian States (http://www.geocities.com/el_canguro/maps/FutureAustralianStates.jpeg)

1. Capricornia - Capital: (After much thought) Darwin . Est. Population: 1.2 million.
Land to the North of 24S degrees (not Tropic of Capricorn, to incorporate cities of Rockhampton, Longreach, Alice Springs, etc.). Townsville would be an appropriate capital considering its good transport links & networks, relatively proximity to bulk of new States' population, & rapid & continued growth in population; Cairns also would be an appropriate capital for similar reasons, particularly since both are expected to have a population explosion over the next few decades. However, I decided on Darwin because of its central location, improving transport links & networks, expected rapid population growth, and existing infrastructure (eg. already having a Parliament House).

2. Westralia - Capital: Perth . Est. Population: 1.6 million.
Land bounded by 24S degrees to the North, and 133E degrees to the East. Covers more land to the East than present WA to compensate for losing land to Capricornia. Now features all of the Nullarbor Plain and Uluru (Ayers Rock).

3. Kaurna - Capital: Adelaide . Est. Population: 1.6 million.
Named after Traditional Aboriginal Tribal/Language Group which resided in the Adelaide region.
Land bounded by 133E degrees to the West; 24S degrees to the North; and direct line south of convergence of Lachlan and Murray Rivers (approx. 143E degrees), along Lachlan River to the convergence of Lachlan and Murrumbidgee Rivers, then directly North (approx. 144E degrees) to the Barcoo River, along Barcoo River to 24S degrees. Loses land to WA but gains land in western NSW & Victoria.

4. Bass - Capital: Melbourne . Est. Population: 5.8 million.
Land bounded by 143E degrees (approx.) to the West; along Lachlan River past Cowra 10 149E degrees (approx.) to the North; then directly South. Large gains in population and land for the Melbourne capital; gains much of Riverina and southern NSW as well as Tasmania; loses western Victoria and some land in fareastern Victoria.

5. Bennelong - Capital: Sydney . Est. Population: 5.2 million.
Named after prominent Aboriginal man during the time of European settlement in Sydney.
Land bounded by 144E degrees to the West; 29S degrees to the North until 29S degrees meets Barwon River; then diagonally SE to coast south of Coffs Harbour.
Large loses in land & population for the Sydney capital; losing much of NSW North Coast and several centres in northeastern NSW, some of the New England region (however not Armidale), most of the Riverina region, and most of the NSW South Coast. Nevertheless, still a large State with large economic and industrial centres, rivalling Bass as the economic power of Australia.

6. Moreton - Capital: Brisbane . Est. Population: 3.2 million.
Land bounded by 24S degrees to the North; 144E (approx.) degrees to the West; 29S degrees to the South, then diagonally southeast.
Gains land and large centres off NSW, loses Tropical Queensland.


7. Australian Capital Territory - Capital: Canberra . Est. Population: 0.8 million.
Land bounded by 149E (approx.) degrees to the West until Lachlan River; then diagonally southeast to Shoalhaven River, then along Shoalhaven River to coast.
Gains land surrounding Canberra, including centres of Goulburn, Queanbeyan and Yass, as well as much of NSW South Coast.
Effectively a State in all but name with its own Government, Police force, etc.

My main criticism of the re-alignment I proposed would be that NSW would never want to lose that much land and population, some maybe having the Murrumbidgee instead of the Lachlan River as the southern boundary might be more appropriate.

[Roylion]

In my view it is a distinct possibility that Australia and New Zealand will one day unite into one nation.

However it is most likely to happen along the lines of New Zealand being admitted into the Federation, probably as a completely seperate state.

I also doubt whether the state system we currently have will ever disappear.

States cannot be summarily abolished by an Act of the Federal Government, unless with the State's consent and then only after a referendum or plebisite. The referendum or plebisite would need to be held in the State (where we are asking the people to change the name of the state, or change the borders of the state, or to vote themselves out of existance).

A national referendum would also need to be held to change the Australian constitution.

[dreamkillers]

Some interesting posts so far.........

As I have posted on other similar threads I recommend people read the book 'Abolish The States' by Rodney Hall published in 1998.

Rodney's essential thesis is that we are the most overgoverned Western Democracy. We have one politician for every 930 Electors whereas the United Kingdom has one politician for some 22,000 Electors.

We have 6 States, 2 Territories and 704 Local Government Areas.

Given that we have merely 11.5 million electors out of a general population of 18.5 million it prompts us to question just how we are presently governing ourselves AND just how we could begin to govern ourselves better.

Many respected observers, Rodney Hall et al, believe we could save up to $30 billion per annum if we amalgamated all 6 States, 2 Territories and 704 Local Government Areas and then divided the whole up into just 30 autonomous regions.


For some further reading check out the following links:-

Should we abolish the states (http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/asc.htm)

Rodney Hall's Alfred Deakin Lecture Series - "Being Shaped by the Stories We Choose from our History" (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deakin/stories/s295006.htm)

ABOLISH STATE GOVERNMENTS - Not a Single Party Issue (http://ablesoft.net/ozrepublic/GREEN1.htm)

The Regional States of Australia. The Coming Regional Governments of Australia, after the Australian Republic and the Abolition of the Federation. (http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/ericblair/open_australia_abolish_the_states.html)


Unfortunately I could never see our politicans let us have this choice given it would do most of them out of a cushy job.......as well as a say in how our country is run


and just in case your wondering I have no ties with any of the current political parties or the above sites......
just an interest/concern on how our country is run and more importantly our continued destruction of our environment.......:mad:

[Roylion]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Some interesting posts so far.........

As I have posted on other similar threads I recommend people read the book 'Abolish The States' by Rodney Hall published in 1998.

Rodney's essential thesis is that we are the most overgoverned Western Democracy. We have one politician for every 930 Electors whereas the United Kingdom has one politician for some 22,000 Electors.

We have 6 States, 2 Territories and 704 Local Government Areas.

Given that we have merely 11.5 million electors out of a general population of 18.5 million it prompts us to question just how we are presently governing ourselves AND just how we could begin to govern ourselves better.

Many respected observers, Rodney Hall et al, believe we could save up to $30 billion per annum if we amalgamated all 6 States, 2 Territories and 704 Local Government Areas and then divided the whole up into just 30 autonomous regions.


Some interesting reading. Some have interesting theories on how the states would be removed.

For example, the last of your listed site claims:

Shed a Tier recognises that the Australian Constitution contains a provision for the removal of the states, in Section 111, according to which:

The Parliament of a state may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

If a federal referendum was held to abolish state and territory governments and was successful, then the state parliaments would surrender the whole of their states to the commonwealth, and would then come under commonwealth jurisdiction. This handover would happen at the same time for all states.

A federal referendum does not have the power to abolish states, as Australia is a federation, in pretty much the same way the 50 states in the US are a union of states. What would be required is a plebiscite in each of the states, which would have to vote to abolish themselves. Only then could Section 111 be invoked. I don't think it is ever going to happen.

[Player]

Somalia has had great success in removing successive layers of government, don't remember them ever having a referendum thou.

Seriously if Australia was intergrated into New Zealand where would the buck stop.

If New Zealand became an Australian state then would not P.N.G. have to be permitted if they requested it also.

I'm sure Jakarta would love Australia and Indonesia sharing a physical border.

Then surely a swag load of Pacific islands would attempt to join also.

Imagine trying to run that mess.

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Roylion

A federal referendum does not have the power to abolish states, as Australia is a federation, in pretty much the same way the 50 states in the US are a union of states. What would be required is a plebiscite in each of the states, which would have to vote to abolish themselves. Only then could Section 111 be invoked. I don't think it is ever going to happen.

Agreed I don't think it will ever happen - it makes too much sense for our political leaders to adopt it........and I would not know the finer points of what needs to be done for it to be adopted - I just wish more people would take an interest in our countries future instead of being lead along by the 'lacklustre' major parties efforts to look at the future.

Just look at where the major parties sit with saving the environment........token efforts every 4 years to con the apathetic majority into believing they are doing the right thing for the future when in fact the reality is we keep going further backwards every year.

My interest in the topic was sparked when I read a copy of 'Abolish The States' by Rodney Hall.......it made sense to me but at the same time I realised it would more than likely never happen..........