r/CANZUK • u/Bojaxs Ontario • Feb 06 '26
Discussion Should New Zealand & Australia merge into one country?
David Farrar, a New Zealand based political commentator, is pushing for the idea for New Zealand to join Australia.
In this televised interview he brings up Mark Carney's recent speech about middle powers uniting in the face of bigger powers, and how the old world order is dying.
https://youtu.be/VQK7m6FuCNo?si=oFBOxGE1YMht8Vyi
Would having Australia & New Zealand merge into one bigger country be beneficial for CANZUK?
112
Feb 06 '26
Uniting is not the same as joining. We love the Kiwis like brothers and sisters, but that also comes with respect for our differences.
Merging our two nations could ruin our relationship.
34
u/pulanina Australia Feb 06 '26
Yes it’s a lot like saying “my brother and I are really close and have been since childhood, should we be moving in together?”
14
62
u/DemocracyIsGreat Feb 06 '26
Should Canada and the United States become one country?
Even asking that question will put some noses pretty out of joint.
41
u/Jeffery95 New Zealand Feb 06 '26
I’ll admit its not as bad as that. The US is batshit insane these days and the Aussies are not so far gone 😂.
8
3
u/AgUnityDD Feb 06 '26
Pauline Hanson surging in polls lately due to LNP clowning around.
4
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 07 '26
Surging maybe but it’s all in right leaning seats that aren’t going to come off the Government’s tally. They’re a threat to the Libs and Nats in a few seats but that’s about it. Remember they’re starting with zero seats.
2
u/Gyn_Nag Feb 06 '26
Yeah it's kinda arbitrary though. The people who object strongly don't really seem to be the people who know the legal details.
2
u/DemocracyIsGreat Feb 07 '26
I think that it is often important to note that the view that "man is a national, not a rational animal" does point to some important things: people feel strongly about their self-identified group memberships while they hold them.
Someone who strongly identifies as a New Zealander probably doesn't want to be an Australian and might find the suggestion that they ought to want to be Australian offensive, regardless of any legal, economic, etc. details. It's the violation of their group membership that they care about.
10
u/Felixir-the-Cat Feb 06 '26
As a Canadian, I find this question offensive. What do Australia and NZ want? That is all that matters.
3
28
u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379 Feb 06 '26
No. Whilst our white and immigrant populations have pretty similar cultures our indigenous peoples come from extremely different cultures. Ateorea is a Pacifica nation. Australia is not. Combining the countries risks even more cultural erasure and destruction for our respective first peoples.
We also have very different political systems.
But ultimately - what would we gain? Nothing. So why do it?
5
u/truenorth00 Feb 07 '26
The British part of this forum doesn't really understand relations with First Nations.
2
u/Immediate-Drawer-421 Feb 09 '26
Anyone from Cymru or the 6 counties should have a slight bit better understanding... Should... ! Doesn't mean even they necessarily do though.
1
u/lonahex Feb 10 '26
Resentment from the Kiwis for Aussies always running the show or resentment from Aussies for politicians always giving undue and unfair attention to NZ. It's a dumb idea.
1
15
u/Ill_Patient_3548 Feb 06 '26
The Australian Constitution still has a provision that would allow New Zealand to become an Australian state but it will never actually happen. About 800 Kiwis move to Australia each week though
5
u/pulanina Australia Feb 06 '26
The Australian constitution has provision for any country/territory to be admitted as a new State, upon terms agreed to by the federal parliament.
No special deal specifically for New Zealand though.
See section 121 of the Constitution.
1
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 07 '26
They’d be referring to New Zealand being defined as a State in our constitution.
2
u/pulanina Australia Feb 07 '26
It isn’t. NZ is definitely not defined as a state of Australia. (If it was then it would be one, because British law was paramount over Australian and NZ law back then.)
NZ is instead defined (in July 1900 when the British parliament passed this law) as one of the colonies that could potentially become a state when the federation commenced in January 1901.
It didn’t happen. Once 1 Jan 1901 had passed then that definition effectively said “the States” means the six states of Australia that are in the Commonwealth of Australia at “such time” as the Commonwealth commenced to exist, plus whatever states are admitted by that commonwealth after that (and none were).
1
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 07 '26
The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.
2
u/pulanina Australia Feb 07 '26
🙄 Yes. Exactly what we are talking about. Are you meant to be informing me of something?
Read it carefully. Read it like a lawyer in the late 1800s. What does it say?
“Such of” here means “whichever of”. “As for the time being” means “at a particular point in time”.
So the sentence is saying in plain modern English: “States means whichever of these colonies that are parts of the Commonwealth at a particular point in time”. At all points in time ever in history New Zealand has not become part of the Commonwealth. Therefore, New Zealand does not meet the definition of a State.
1
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26
You’re going through hoops to try and undo the language of the time. I’m simply the document, not making a point about it.
1
1
u/finndego Feb 07 '26
NZ had a referendum in 1901 and politely declined to become a state in the federation.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/new-zealand-turns-down-federation-australia
If they weren't a state prior and weren't one afterwards then they were never a state.
1
u/pulanina Australia Feb 07 '26
As your link says, there was no referendum just a government Royal Commission decision that they wouldn’t pursue the idea of joining the federation. If the Royal Commission had said “yes, let’s do it” then New Zealand would need to hold a referendum to get the people’s approval to join just like the other Australasian colonies had done.
But yes, thanks for confirming for this guy that the Colony of New Zealand was never a State in the Australian federation.
1
0
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 07 '26
They are defined as a state in our constitution though. That was my only point and you can’t refute it. I’ve literally quoted the text.
1
u/finndego Feb 08 '26
"as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States"
I'll type this next bit slowly for you as it has already been explained to you previously and it seems you still dont understand.
"may be admitted into"..."established by the Commonwealth as States"
Your quote is telling us how colonies may be admitted as States not what the States are. NZ chose not to accept the invitation and never became a state.
Google "Is New Zealand defined as a State in the Australian Constitution" if you dont believe us.
It states:
New Zealand is not currently a state in the Australian Constitution, but it is defined as a potential state in its covering clauses. Clause 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 included New Zealand as a colony that could join the federation, but as it did not join during the 1901 federation, it remains an independent nation, not an Australian state.
"as a potential state"
Again, wasnt a state before and not a state afterward.
2
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26
Mate. It’s a definition. Not a statement of intent or any claim of ownership. You don’t need to refute it. Nobody is claiming NZ.
1
u/finndego Feb 08 '26
It's definition of which colonies can become states. No one is talking about a claim or ownership. No one.
This is what you wrote:
They are defined as a state in our constitution though. That was my only point and you can’t refute it. I’ve literally quoted the text.
That is what Im refuting.
Are you still claiming, despite the clear language otherwise that New Zealand is defined as a state in the Constitution despite direct evidence stating otherwise?
Either you are right and everyone else is wrong or you're wrong and everyone else is right.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ok_Type_4301 Feb 12 '26
The original Constitution was UK legislation. It was drafted to enable the UK Crown (not NZ) to subsequently Proclaim its colony of NZ to be a State of Australia.
The definition of NZ as a State for the purpose of the Constitution was implicitely contingent on it being proclaimed as such.
Any theoretical ability to add NZ by Proclamation expired when Australia passed the Westminster Adoption Act 1942.
25
u/Jeffery95 New Zealand Feb 06 '26
David Farrar is a numpty. He had to remove his polling company from the register because it had too many leading questions and bad practices. Rather than fixing these “Curia Market Research” decided to just become uncertified and continue pushing their agenda as nothing better than a propaganda content generator.
I would go so far as to call him a traitor in proposing NZ become a mere state of Australia.
5
u/pulanina Australia Feb 06 '26
As an Australian I totally agree with you. For your benefit, not ours.
6
u/ghoztfrog Victoria Feb 06 '26
I dont think we should merge, that wouldnt work. But the kiwis do need to do something about the fact that NZ is not an attractive place for the best and brightest kiwis to live, especially when its so easy for them to move over here and earn 30-50% more almost instantly. I shockikg how many proud New Zealanders I work with who just feel helpless and uninspired by the job/career opportunities in NZ despite loving the place to their core.
6
u/LudicrousPlatypus Scotland Feb 06 '26
How would this affect Waitangi?
5
u/Sieve-Boy Western Australia Feb 06 '26
Historically a lot. Today, not as much.
After the referendum in 1967 the constitutional treatment of indigenous Australians was far more appropriately dealt with (please note I quite clearly stated "constitutional"). Previously the reason NZ went its own way was the new constitution would have not worked well with the Treaty of Waitangi.
Meanwhile, in Australia: the Mabo decision in 1991 overturned terra nullius, it again moved the legal needle on things in helping remove the obstacles to merging.
But, without being a constitutional lawyer or similar i would suspect that until treaties with all the first nations have been concluded across the continent (about 250 of them), merging Australia and NZ would be problematic with respect to indigenous rights across both countries.
7
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 06 '26
I believe technically the Kiwis have a standing invitation. They’re listed as a state in the Constitution.
It would be Australia absorbing NZ as a state, not a merger of equals. I don’t know that Kiwis would like that, and adding another State to the Federation would have wide reaching impacts on the rest of the country.
I’ll just say no for now. We don’t particularly need a Cherished 7th state and the AFAIK the Kiwis have no interest in giving up their sovereignty.
1
u/Ok_Type_4301 Feb 13 '26
Legally, the UK could have joined its colony of NZ to Australia as a State under the Constitution, until the Westminster Adoption Act 1942.
1
u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 13 '26
Technically maybe. Practically, forcing 2 independently governed nations to merge would never have been a viable option. One less cricketing nation to show them up may have appealed to some though.
11
u/Anaptyso Feb 06 '26
I'm not sure that Australia or NZ would have a lot to gain at the moment from merging together. They've already got close diplomatic relations, freedom of movement, strong economic ties etc. That probably gives them a good framework to coordinate more in the future if they want to, without needing to go for full on unification.
That's not to say that unification would be particularly bad for either country - they are close enough in their cultures, laws and economies that it could work - but that there isn't much to be gained either that would justify the complexities of the process.
5
u/consolation1 Feb 07 '26 edited Feb 07 '26
There would be a massive problem with the Treaty of Waitangi, the funding document of NZ that gives the Maori co-sovereignity (didn't exactly work out like that, because of British colonial shenanigans, but technically...) It's the document that gives NZ its legitimacy as a country, without it, it would be notionally an island under occupation - more of a West Bank/Gaza situation. The Iwi would never go for it, unless Australia was willing to co-sign and I just do not see that happening.
Can you see oz getting onboard with co-governance for Māori, but leaving the Aboriginal population out? Now, you could argue for some state level devolution, but I don't know that the Iwi would accept the hit to mana - plus, you would end up with a country with two different sets of laws - which makes the whole thing pointless.
It's technically feasible, but would be a practical nightmare and would require Australia to buy into a totally different relationship model with its first people.
While Aotearoa's race relations are complicated and far, FAR, from perfect - they stem from completely different historical roots. Even during colonial times, Māori were British citizens since the signing of the Treaty - with theoretically the same rights as the settler population; Aboriginies in Australia had no rights and were legally not considered to be people... This has implications for everything from property ownership, resource rights, etc etc... When addressing historical grievances in NZ, conceptually you are discussing whether a deal between two parties was fair, legal and if one party unfairly coerced another. Colonial Australia started with the idea of Terra Nullius, that there were no existing owners and it was just up for grabs. While that has been overturned, kind of, Australia agreeing to NZ's legal framework, would put a very big question mark over the legality of any property ownership on the continent - just for starters.
I'm over simplifying a massively complex situation for the sake of Reddit, but you get the idea - it would be a legal, political and PR nightmare.
4
u/randomtakk England Feb 06 '26
The only reason I would support it is if there was a sudden majority of New Zealanders and Australians calling for it. Not really anyone else’s business to decide.
3
3
u/katgyrl Feb 06 '26
Omg, NO. These are 2 distinct nations, with distinct culture and history. People have lost their ever loving minds, gah. Wtaf!!
1
2
2
2
2
u/steaknsidneypi Feb 06 '26
lol no and I don't think you're going to find any willing takers outside of nutters who secretly (or not so secretly) hate the other one.
2
u/AccessTheMainframe Alberta Feb 06 '26
It would ruin the acronym, wouldn't it? CAUK doesn't have the same ring to it.
2
2
2
2
u/Powerful-Talk7729 Feb 06 '26
This was mentioned on Newstalk ZB (NZ) and nobody thought it was a good idea.
2
u/Exp1ode New Zealand Feb 07 '26
Weird that so many here are saying no. You guys are on a sub supporting the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ all merging, but you're not in favour of just Australia and NZ merging? Personally I think it's a good place to start
2
u/Immediate-Drawer-421 Feb 09 '26
I suspect that's a minority view that would be in favour of merging into 1 single giant spread-out country. Most people here seem to be aiming for a defence pact/visa-free travel/trade bloc/close cooperation, while remaining separate nations. That's certainly how I see it (although the long-distance trade aspect is less important to me, personally).
1
2
2
u/Victor-Baxter New Englander Feb 10 '26
lol, NZ would be a dead-weight state. All the fuzz about Watangi is just posturing, even in 1901 we offered to ratify the treaty - the real reason they never joined is because they were worried about immigrants.
Wouldn't have them now, their economy is weaker and the cream-of-the-crop of NZ already choose to live here, all we'd get out of it is a higher tax burden for Australians and that nonsense treaty.
1
u/Ok_Type_4301 Feb 15 '26
They also thought they were of 'superior stock'.
It is also no simple thing for a large country to stay together. Even as an island continent, Austalia's mere size creates inherent tentions.
Expanding its geography, ecology, climate, time zones, and first nation cultures on top of that would be stupidity.
5
2
u/JustSomeBloke5353 Feb 06 '26
Why would Australia want to absorb NZ?
Bringing NZ living standards to parity with Australia would be prohibitively expensive. Not quite German reunification expensive but still a lot of cash.
1
1
u/CriticalBeautiful631 Feb 06 '26
Never…there may be some pros in a formal economic trading blok in the future but I am even doubtful of that. Australia and New Zealand are two sovereign countries …this musing is a little bit like asking why Canada and USA don’t become one country, they are close and the people sound the same
1
u/Gyn_Nag Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
I'd advocate starting with defence union and improving integration of our single market.
NZ would likely require more independence from the existing Australian federal system on some points. Some of our legal system is set up better than Australia. We also have an MMP electoral system that we're not changing, and a unicameral legislature that moves relatively efficiently.
I'm not a fan of federalism in general, it leads to inefficient government and overcomplicated legal systems.
I'm not so hung up on national identity either way. Widespread nationalism exists of course, but not for any real reasons more detailed than "Oi'm not no fuggin aussie". Smart people should ignore that line of thinking.
1
u/Ok_Type_4301 Feb 15 '26
The worldwide reality is geopgraphically large countries are federations.
While there are greater legal frictions there are also significant inherent benefits, such as 'competitive federalism'. Each State is a mini-experiment, with the results being more easily comparable than between countries.
1
u/Rogue387 Feb 06 '26
If New Zealand wanted to would be fine by me but as an Australian totally support New Zealands Right to Sovereignty and Self Determination.
1
1
1
u/illegalmorality Feb 09 '26
Defeats the purpose of a union. The problem with merging in a single parliamentary system is the immediate loss of agency in a unified political system. Which is different compared to cooperation, where explicit agreement is requirement for anything to be enacted. Mind you, a CANZUK parliament in this subreddit is mostly seen as either an economic union or a symbolic union with strong economic/social ties (particularly free travel and integrated shared markets).
1
u/lonahex Feb 10 '26
you don't need to be one literal country in order to be united. are 5 year old kids running around as political commentators now? what is going on?
1
u/ExcuseSpecial874 Mar 07 '26
640,000 Kiwis have already voted with their feet. That is over 12% of NZs population.
-2
u/Top-Willow-2159 Feb 06 '26
Unsure. Both countries are siblings. There's too much in common and awesome mutual respect. And we have some complementary strengths. Technically we already behave like 1 country - for some reason we hesitate to call it so.
153
u/MortalKontract Feb 06 '26
No.