New Zealand and Fiji were involved in the original conventions for federation. New Zealand ultimately backed out due to the concern that a unified army based in Australia would not be able to defend New Zealand promptly enough, but also the worry that their main form of government income, customs, which comprised one-third of all receipts, would be lost to a federal government. However Captain Russell's speech at the 1891 convention points to a rising distrust of centralism in New Zealand.

From the 1891 Constitutional Conventions ;

I have been listening, as a representative of a remote part of Australasia, for the true federal spirit. It has been supposed that the federal spirit does not exist in New Zealand. I venture to say, without hesitation, that in any debate in New Zealand on the question of federation, we should have heard more of Australasia and less of Australia.

It is a broad question that we are here to deliberate upon, and as I am now only filling a gap of five minutes, and have most distinguished colleagues to follow me, I am unable to enter upon the different subjects at the length I should wish; but the great question that we have before us now is not the creation of one large colony on the continent of Australia, but to endeavour so to frame a constitution that all parts of Australasia shall be able to attach themselves to it should they now or hereafter think fit to do so.

It is perfectly true that New Zealand has decided to send but three delegates to this Convention; but I would point out that, at the deliberations of the conference last year, though nothing was affirmed on the subject, it was held by all the speakers that in all probability the voting at the Convention would take place by colonies, and if that is the case surely the voice of three men expressed in one vote might in itself be held to have as much effect as the voice of a host, inasmuch as it would be the still small voice of a strong feeling, and not the loud popular clamour which so often means nothing at all.

The great question that Australasia has to consider at this moment is whether Australasia will constitute herself the mother state to which all the other peoples in the neighbourhood shall attach themselves. There are many questions of great importance which hinge on that, and which have not been alluded to in this resolution, and which could not have been alluded to by any of the previous speakers.

The great object of any federal constitution, according to my mind, at any rate-I speak for myself-the great desideratum should be to so frame a constitution that the remoter portions of Australasia should be able to join themselves on to what we may term the mother colony, should they think fit so to do.

Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Australian union: Interesting, this hasn\'t been reported at all over this side of the Tasman.
  • cam . # .
    I bet it hasn\'t: what purpose does NZ need from Au other than for Au to keep its economy open and continue to open its labor market. Looks like the Au media is starting to ask NZ politicians about it - rejection

    cam
  • Huh: Huh, they interviewed Winston Peters... that\'s pretty funny. Note his charactaristic attack on the media (trying to generate headlines, etc), and a stolen quote (from NZ statesman Sir John Hall).

    You\'re right. One of our former PMs, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, basically said the whole point of our trade and defense agreements (CER and CDF) was to give New Zealand the advantages of being an Aussie state without actually becoming one. Makes sense to me.
  • cam . # .
    Australian Federation: was for the purpose of unified defence and to stop NSW and Victoria leveraging tariffs on each other. Unfortunately for NSW it was the sole free-trade state, all the rest were protectionist. Australian defence is strong enough that NZ is in a benign region and cant skimp on defence spending. Plus the economies are pretty open and the labor markets are more open that between other nation-states. NZ also has stable government - there is absolutely no reason why NZ would say yes to something like this.

    It is political (and ethnic) romanticism from Canberra.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    ... and cant skimp on defence spending.: should read\' \"and CAN skimp on defence spending.\"

    cam
  • avocadia . # .
    Skimping: It was only a few years ago that NZ retired its Air Force, wasn\'t it? I seem to remember a kerfuffle amongst Australian blowhards about how Australia would be expected to provide air defence for New Zealand in case of attack; something I thought was the entire point of ANZUS - and other treaties - anyway.
  • Defence: Well, that\'s also true. It\'s pretty unfair on our part IMHO.

    The interesting thing is that a number of NZers (a small minority) think that should NZ become a state of Aus, we\'d be spared the reconciliation process we\'re going through regarding the Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty between Maori and the British, from 1840). Pretty extreme measure really, and one with not that much support.
  • cam . # .
    Canada does exactly the same thing: and if Indonesia gave Australia a benign neighbourhood Australian defence spending would drop to 1.2% GDP too. It is what nations do, they only spend heavily on defence if they are threatened or are the current empire (or challenging for empire).

    cam
  • cam . # .
    Defence Treaties: are supposed to be might in numbers to any foe as well as leveraging an allies military might in defence of the weaker country. ANZUS is a bit different though, it was a commitment by American to defend Australian water in WWIII so that Australian troops would remain in the Middle East to fight the Soviets. It was an anti-Curtin treaty lol.

    cam
  • I have some well and poorly thought out ideas: on this issue. Somewhat of a schematic, politically centralist, economic rationalist idea on how to go about this, with strong flavourings of Americanisms and participatory democracy. Would you like to discuss this more?
  • cam . # .
    If you want to start exploring those issues: now that you have an account on SSR you can start publishing diaries and articles here. Diaries tend to be jots, or notes, say under 500 words; while articles tend to be more meaty. You can see the links on the right hand side of the page.

    As you are aware SSR focuses on constitutional, legislative and (largely non-party) political organisational issues. As well as foreign policy and some world affairs issues. So if someone posts an article how Midnight Oil is better than AC/DC, it will get deleted as it doesn\'t fit the site :)

    By all means explore those issues here. Might be a good idea to start posting diaries initially until you find your \'scoop\' feet.

    cam
  • I\'m on it: Cam, I\'ve started a meta-diary entry and will post it here soon. A lot of it draws on my recent commentary.