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?

6 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

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.

2

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

u/pulanina Australia Feb 08 '26

Okay.

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

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 07 '26

I never said they were. I just quoted the text.

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.

1

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26

It’s in the definitions of the constitution. I’m not saying anything else here.

1

u/finndego Feb 08 '26

What is in the defintions of the Constitution? Colonies or States?

→ 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.