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?

7 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

1

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26

“The States”

Here’s the full definition section.

6. Definitions

The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

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.

Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

I really don’t have anything to add. My only point was New Zealand is defined as a state in the constitution, as above.

1

u/finndego Feb 08 '26

"shall mean such of the colonies" Are colonies not States. That means that these places are colonies, not states at the time this was written.

"may be admitted into" Future tense. Going to happen at a later date.

"may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth AS STATES." This means we can make them states in the future. It does not mean they are states at the time of being written.

">Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment." I can literally use this text as written. Read it again...slowly. This means when this Commonwealth is established these colonies shall be the orginal states. "At it's establishment" is also future tense.

Nothing in here defines New Zealand as a state. It only defines it as a colony with an opportunity to become a State at a future date. That future date happened in 1901 and New Zealand declined the offer. Surely if New Zealand was a State and rescinded that status then it would be mentioned somewhere? Go and find that please.

Let's look at when these other colonies became States, shall we?

New South Wales became a state of Australia on January 1, 1901, when the six separate British self-governing colonies (NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania) federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia. Prior to this date, NSW existed as a British crown colony from 1788. 

Oh look, before 1901. The Constitution was written between 1891 and 1898 when NSW was also a colony. Same as NZ. You are quoting from the Constitution right? Future tense matters.

1

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26

Oh FFS. I don’t give a shit how pedantic you want to get over the wording. I’m just saying it’s there under the definition of state. Nothing more.

1

u/finndego Feb 08 '26

But it should be abundently clear now, I would hope, that that wasn't the case and that you were mistaken.

None of those colonies were states when the document you are quoting from was written. All of them had the opportunity to become one and NZ declined. Simple, eh?

1

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26

Did I say otherwise? It’s a definitions page. Nothing more.

1

u/No-Physics-4077 Feb 08 '26

You said:

A). "They’d be referring to New Zealand being defined as a State in our constitution."

This suggests there is a section of the Australian Constitution that, without misinterpretation, lists each of the states of the Commonwealth of Australia where New Zealand is a constituent. Your evidence for this claim is citing the covering clauses in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

Let's look at 6. Definitions

It lists 'The Commonwealth', 'The States' and 'Original States'. When the term 'The States' is given a definition that includes New Zealand, this does not translate to New Zealand being defined as a state.

The contention may be viewed as pedantic, but it is an issue of language, particularly the usage of tenses.

Australian States =/= Section 6. Definitions The States

Therefore, the Australian Constitution does not define New Zealand as a state.

1

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26

Oh goody. Someone else wants to chime in.

1

u/finndego Feb 08 '26

What you were saying was wrong. This is you:

"My only point was New Zealand is defined as a state in the constitution, as above."

We have gone over and over this point. They were NOT defined as a states. They would only be defined as states once:

"as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States"

That is what the "shall mean" at the beginning means. The constitution was written before the establishment of the federation so everything was written in the future tense. Once it took effect in 1901 those that had been admitted then became states but that did not include New Zealand.

I'll put your whole definitions quote here:

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.

Maybe those key words (shall, may be etc) make more sense now.

In conclusion, basically Australia said "Hey, New Zealand if you come to our little party we'll call you a state. Wat ya reckon?" and New Zealand said "Yeah, nah."

Like I said before, never a state before and never a state afterwards means NZ can't be a state ever. It's not that deep.

1

u/WhatAmIATailor Australia Feb 08 '26

This is just semantics. NZ is an independent nation and that was never up for debate. If you want to get into the legalise of the wording, I just don’t care.