WHO WE ARE: Come join us, please

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Who We Are

To learn the shocking truth about MasterChef, go to The Tribal Mind.

A column about Australia by David Dale, published in The Sun-Herald 26/7/2009
There's an easy way to avoid the embarrassment that flowed from this column's revelation last week that Australia's favourite wine is made in New Zealand. All we need to do is amalgamate the two countries, and then Marlborough becomes a wine region of Australia and its Oyster Bay sauvignon blanc become an Aussie drop (for details on our drinking habits, go to last week's column).

The only foreseeable problem with this scheme is that absorbing the Kiwis might delay another vital nation-building project -- abolishing our State governments. To persuade them to join us, we'd have to offer them the chance to be not one but two States within a new enlarged federation, and thus be represented by 12 senators in Canberra (or Wellington, a nice new capital for Australasia). It would hardly be cricket to promise the Kiwis some semblance of individual identity and, having got their signatures on the treaty, immediately deprive them of local self-government.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Today's column is supposed to be about Grand Visions For The Future of Australia. Since it seems we're not going to suffer too badly from the global financial crisis, we can afford to lift our eyes from short term goals and reflect on how our country should advance over the next two decades. Here's a theory ...

The National To-Do List
1 Become a republic
2 Amalgamate with New Zealand
3 Fix the coat of arms
4 Abolish the States
6 Build a system of canals between Darwin and Adelaide.

Number 1 is the easiest, involving just a bit of paperwork. At the moment, the Governor General is nominated by the Government and, if there's no outcry from the Opposition, rubber-stamped by the monarch in London. Arguments have bogged down in whether an elected head of state would have powers likely to compete with the powers of the prime minister. So lets avoid the menacing term "President". Lets call the new figurehead The Administrator, nominated by the government and rubber-stamped by Parliament. There you have it -- Republic Lite, and straight on to task 2.

The hard part will be convincing them to get into bed with us. Viewers of the TV series Flight of the Conchords will know the paranoia of New Zealanders about their neighbour. The former NZ prime minister Robert Muldoon observed that every time a Kiwi is silly enough to move to Australia, that raises the average IQ of both countries.

Yes, they do feel superior to us, and not just in winemaking. So we must make this transformation worth their while. We can write into the new Constitution our belief that the smartest person in Australia is John Clarke.

And maybe NZ will need to be classified as three States - called North Island, South Island and The Wellington Coffee Enclave - plus having the right to impose their pronunciation on the teaching of English in schools (test phrase "Lits git some fush en chups for the cet un the het").

Of course we'll need to put a kiwi to the coat of arms. Easiest would be to replace that other flightless bird, the emu, even if that introduced problems of scale with the kangaroo on the other side. At the same time, we could replace the star that currently sits atop the shield with an octopus, to symbolize the ocean connecting the various States and the contribution of immigrants to changing our cooking preferences in the past 50 years. The Kiwis would probably prefer a whitebait up there, but we can hold that as a bargaining chip when we move on to No 4.

Out of space, so we'll save abolishing the States for the next column, which will include the contributions you make by going to Comments

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). For daily updates on Australian attitudes, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

As a onetime firebrand republican, I now favour a constitutional monarchy. A republic is off the agenda.
Amalgamation with New Zealand was allowed for in the constitution, and would allow for an expanded Sheffield Shield competition. The big problem would be deciding which of the two Australian emblems would move over to NZs coat of arms, and which would stay here in the amalgamated single state of Australia that would become part of New Zealand.
The states cannot be abolished easily, and in fact we need more states (Central Queensland and New England at least). They should secede from Australia. The Federation should be abolished, it has failed us miserably.
"a system of canals between Darwin and Adelaide" -- is this to export serial killers to Darwin, or introduce more alcoholics to Adelaide?
Sorry to be difficult and contrary.

by Professor Rosseforp on July 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM

David, I fully endorse your agenda - and in the same order of priority, too.
Some comments....
1. The Republic. Let's put it on notice NOW, that we will automatically install our republic upon the death of Queen Elizabeth. And commence the debate about the question of the role and election of the president immediately.
2. Amalgamation with New Zealand. We have so much in common and are already half way there, anyway. Together, the Australasian Federation would add up to that much more than the sum of the two separate entities. Benefits to New Zealand would include a bigger voice in world affairs and more economic dynamism.
For Australia, the above plus the white wines, an unbeatable package for off-shore tourists and the injection of a more independent, socially progressive political influence. Oh, and Aussies could also intimidate the Poms with the haka!
3. Coat of arms. Not an issue at all for me... Every one I've ever seen has been pretty nondescript and meaningless.
4. Abolishing the states. They are completely redundant, cost-ineffective and inefficient. Above all, they poison our society with an extra layer of POLITICIANS! (And while you're at it, let's amalgamate all those metropolitan councils into a single city council: think of the savings!)
5. Darwin-Adelaide Canal. The Top End is awash with water, so let's shift some of it down to parched Adelaide and the dessicated bits in between. A great infrastructure investment.
OK, it's time to roll up our sleeves, Mr Rudd, and get things happening!

by Tony E on July 26, 2009 at 02:33 PM

David I like your agenda. My wife and I were born in NZ but call ourselves Australians. New Zealand figured in the thinking of Governor Phillip even before the first fleet left England. According to David Hill's book, 1788, Phillip wrote in January or February 1787 his thoughts for the voyage and settlement. On capital punishment Phillip felt that there were only two crimes that warranted capital punishment and these were murder and sodomy but he still thought he could avoid the death penalty. his words were "For either of these crimes I would wish to confine the criminal till an opportunity offered of delivering him to the natives of New Zealand, and let them eat him. the dread of this will operate much stronger than the threat of death.""
So New Zealand provided the ultimate sanction for the first settlers. This makes it fitting that it should be more closely integrated with Australia. However the Kiwis don't see it that way. If they were to know how Governor Phillip thought so favourably of them in conjunction with ultimate punishment they would stop looking down at our convict heritage. Incidentally I don't know whether Governor Phillip ever carried out his thoughts on using the natives of New Zealand in that way.
Although the most sensible governance for Australia would be two levels, Federal and local the problem is that the states were set up first and they agreed to federation. So there are far too many self interested state politicians to ever convince that such a change in our constitution is warranted. Also if New Zealand were to come on board there is no-way the Kiwis would then give up statehood. The federation process included the Kiwis and many questions could not be settled by the Aussies as the three eastern states voted as a block and Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia also voted as a block. This gave the Kiwis the deciding vote when each block disagreed! So they actually had a disproportionate influence in our constitution. This is another good heritage reason for them to come on board.
The one suggestion that was slightly off course was the idea of a system of canals from Darwin to Adelaide. This would be horrendously expensive and would be as much a white elephant as the current railway link is at present. What would work is diversion of more of the NT and Queensland monsoonal wet into the river systems in the channel country that ultimately drain to Lake Ayre. Lake Ayre is approximately 15 meters below sea level so could become a vast body of water if enough could be drained to it. Then the natural drainage will cause a greening of more of central Australia and a premanent lake at Lake Ayre. A permanent lake would be great for the environment but also increase the humidity to Eastern Australia in the winter and spring and then increasing the humidity to WA in the summer and autumn. These increases in humidity should cause more rain. So only fairly subtle changes in topograhy in the Northern Territory outback and in the gulf country of Queensland are needed so that the existing river systems can be used to feed Lake Arye. Nature would then provide more rain to the lower states and greater diversity of life in the center of the continent.
In my view changing the coat of arms and becoming a republic are just red herrings. Will either of these actually make Australia (and NZ) a "better" nation. Surely we can be just proud of our achievements as a nation(s) if we don't happen to do either or both of these.

by Brent Walker on July 26, 2009 at 04:42 PM

NZ rejected the chance to be part of the Federation of Australia about 100 years ago. Most NZers would still reject this option though their reasoning may be somewhat different.
I once found an article on this period of our history on the net . One of the reasons giving for declining the offer was that joining with Australia would mean we would have so many ''larrikins'' moving here. There were other terms which I did not know the meaning of but it seemed Australians were not held in high regard by NZ leaders at that time.
Envy of our tourist industry is long standing.

by erina loo on July 27, 2009 at 05:48 AM

Abolish the states? That's a terrible idea. Of course they are a massive waste of money, but do we really want an efficient government? If they could actually pass laws on every knee-jerk, we would all be living in padded cells for our own protection. The current system is best - we get the stern "we'll do something" speech from the politicians on the media, they launch an enquiry, and overall nothing gets done. It's for the best.

by robert jay on July 27, 2009 at 06:32 AM

Amalgamate with New Zealand? Makes eminent sense. Whilst you are at it why not tackle some other global simplifications? Other obvious merger candidates are the UK+Ireland. France+Belgium, Germany+Austria for starters, and what about merging all those funny little Balkan states into a single entity? It should all be very easy.

by David on July 27, 2009 at 07:37 AM

We should join with NZ. Then we can get our double yellow lines back instead of having to live with the double white lines that are impossible to see when driving whenever it rains!

by Trish Hunt on July 27, 2009 at 09:10 AM

Australia should not merge with New Zealand - they act superior because in many ways their small and beautiful country is superior, especially when it comes to not wreaking havoc on the environment...
Yes let's get rid of state governments, what a waste of resources and massive opportunity for corruption and mismanagement.
I hope #6 is a joke . . . it's true that Adelaide is suffering but these massive infrastructure projects are part of the problem not the solution... better to fix the Murray Darling situation first (and stop growing water hungry crops like cotton and rice)...

by chapluqa on July 27, 2009 at 09:13 AM

How does one translate "Gert by Sea" into Maori?

by Jeff on July 27, 2009 at 09:31 AM

Gert by sea = Te moana e p---kai (roughly. Very roughly)
I am here to help :)

by Lena on July 27, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Seemingly secession from the monarchy would cripple our already established constitution and distort our ideal of democracy (which still is untapped). There is furthermore the difficulty of establishing a bipartisan government with New Zealand, and as Professor Rosseforp suggests, the difficulty of consolidating state governments in an already languished system.
Apart from the inherent problem of logistics and geography that divides the two nations, I think it would be unwise for Mr Rudd and his cohort to pursue anything radical as making Australia a Republic and annexing New Zealand. Priority rests with addressing the impediment of our own systems such as the lack of national education and standard curriculum; a health system - divided, which still hasn't adopted the the well established "free medical" system of our mother England; as well as the embittered duplicitous states that endorse many of these problems. Why then would New Zealand opt for amalgamation?

These are but a few of the problems that have changed my mind on Republicanism to maintaining our stay in the commonwealth.

by H. Walsh on July 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Even simpler - get a joint session of parliament to nominate a person for Governor-General and send the nomination off to Buck House for the rubber stamp. Formalise the rules as Keating would have had them - no serving politician can be nominated nor one who has retired within the preceeding 5 years. After the hoi polloi have got used to that, replace the title G-G with President. A few years later, forget the Buck Hoise rubber stamp. It's what Keating should have done and represents his greatest failure after not dividing Tlestra into wholesale and retail businesses

by David Jones on July 27, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I think the list is great, except it's backwards. We should start with abolishing the states and building the canals, then move onto the other items later. We will likely never see NZ become part of Australia, but what about an "economic union" with Australia, NZ and some of the more fiscally responsible Pacific Islands.?

by Andy D on July 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM

I am against asking the New Zealanders to federate with Australia, and the absurd idea of a Darwin to Adelaide canal. Don't we have enough crazy ideas circulating already?
Instead we should tow New Zealand around into the Great Australian Bight, one Saturday afternoon when they are distracted by a rugby match we've arranged to lose. Before they get over their euphoria at winning we'll have them all off to Centrelink to do some work for the dole or fruit picking at which they excel.
Sam Neil can be our President in a reworked dictatorship. With all the money we'll save in not voting we could become the Singapore of the South.
After a few years of federated bliss we can cut them adrift again, but cleverly foist all our national debt on them, whilst keeping all their water.

by Apanui on July 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM

What would NZ gain from amalgamation with Australia. The answer is not much that they dont already have (ie free market in goods and labour)
In fact they would lose their central government which would downgrade to a state one (goodbye Wellington cofee enclave), their own currency and hence monetary policy (which could screw them up big time if a major el nino event hit Australia), and their own independent foreign policy (and good reputation that comes with that)

by Dingo on July 27, 2009 at 01:24 PM

I know so many lovely Newzealanders on a "permanent holiday" here that it some what feels like we are already one country.
Seriously though what do NZers think about it?
Would having the same economic and political platform help both nations on the global scene or hider?

by Terry on July 27, 2009 at 01:43 PM

Ha! We Kiwis aint falling for this, its just a ruse to send Russell Crowe back.

by Tony Cox on July 27, 2009 at 01:51 PM

Brief thoughts, further consideration obviously required on all. An Austrazealand CONTINENTAL 'Republic' with a parliamentarily appointed 'President' possessing identical powers to the current GG. I highlight the word CONTINENTAL deliberatily to avoid the possibiliy of total destruction or ursping of our new national constitution, identity or powers by supra-national or global bodies in the future. Still remaining a member of the Commonwealth AND similar Asia-Pacific neighbourly bodies. Inclined to keep states (including an additional 2 for NZ) as they were designed to prevent excessive centralisation/control. Where would our new capital be? We could reduce the overall number of local councils. Alternatively and less desirably in my opinion, we could embrace a 2-tiered regional federal structure with a new TRICAMERAL federal parliament, i.e. with another house of review (more work needed on composition, empowerment and structure) or third house. We could have a 'joint-capital,' i.e. new body (lets tentatively call it the Council of Review) located in Wellington, along with the executive (President) whilst Canberra could accomodate House of Reps/Senate & Judiciary (High Court) to share our new national identity and democratic powers. Coat of arms/flag/anthem etc to be decided by competition and referendum. Not sure about the canals, like the idea of draining more water to Lake Eyre. Whatever is done to address the water crisis, we must proceed with caution in terms of climatic and biospheric engineering lest the attempted soultions unwittingly create even bigger problems. Just my thoughts, have a good day!...:)

by Ian/Melbourne/Australia on July 27, 2009 at 02:19 PM

One idea that I believe should be considered is a common currency between the two countries. The protocol already exists with the Euro as to how this could be done - bring on the Pacific Dollar! Another bonus would be a revision of the coinage issued in Australia along the lines of what has already been done in New Zealand.

by Jon on July 27, 2009 at 03:55 PM

Merging all those funny little Balkan states into one state, hmmm sounds like Yugoslavia which NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries hated and did all their best to destroy.
Please dont associate Australia and New Zealand with such fate

by Al on July 27, 2009 at 04:21 PM

The republic is a definite, when the uncharismatic Charles ascends the throne as George VIII. Just somebody has to get around to it to put it back on the agenda. The political union with NZ is desirable in a global village (look where other regions in SAmerica, Europe or Asia are going..), but it will not happen. John Howard did his best to renege on the Trans Tasman treaty and introduce the concept of ineligible Kiwis (to save Centrelink some money). The abolition of the states contravenes the constitution and is out of the question. Finally, a canal from Darwin to Adelaide will be a bigger pit than the railway.
So, on balance, within a reasonable timeframe, and nor surprisingly, the republic will happen, and nothing but.

by Paul on July 27, 2009 at 04:56 PM

Go back 10-20 years and as a middle aged NZer I would rubbished the suggestion of NZ formally joining with Australia. However, these days I now suspect that, although it won't happen in my lifetime, it will happen eventually.
Surely it is a joke the comment that NZers feel superior to Australians - they certainly don't feel inferior, but equally certainly not superior. NZers don't disagree when Australians call themselves the lucky country (why else do so many of us emigrate there). It has alot of the advantages NZ does not have - largeish population, mineral resources, abundant land, great sporting nation etc - and whilst we might not like to openly admit it, a fairly like-minded population (why else do Kiwis & Aussies so regularly find themselves teaming up together when they are offshore).
Truth is, what each country doesn't have, the other one has in volumes (a cricket team/a rugby team, red wine/white wine, dry land/water etc etc). It would make absolute sense but not as an economic union, or as a currency union that many NZers pro-port to welcome without realising the consequences. It would all depend upon how it would put together, and probably for another generation to pass on first

by Kevin on July 27, 2009 at 05:23 PM

Oh this is actually somewhat serious - I thought it was a list of the 5 stupidest ideas of Australias future but no it seems some actually think any of these ideas are actually good ideas lol

by Josh Burnell on July 27, 2009 at 05:24 PM

Dont abolish the states we need more . The only way to spread the population around Australia would be to create more States eg WA. could be divided in to Kimberleys,Pilbra, Nullabour while Qld could be divided into Cape York, Gulf States ,Capricorn Coast , and the Lake Ayre Basin . The Murray and Darling basin should have separate statehood. And I dont mind if the Kiwis share our flag.

DD replies: The idea would be to abolish the current State governments, and amalgamate local councils into about 100 regional governments, in the form you suggest.

by Kevin Berry on July 27, 2009 at 06:18 PM

Ok a great idea NOT! Abolish the states? What happens to State of Origin? Join with the Kiwis? What happens to the Bledisloe Cup? Maybe have a single currency, that might be a start!

by Andy on July 27, 2009 at 09:41 PM

As a New Zealander I would agree to Australia merging with New Zealand - as long as Australia was renamed the West Island and they were all taught to speak correctly.

by steveL on July 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM

I have read you column over a long period with interest, and some of your writing make good sense. The same cannot be said for your latest list of National To Do items.
Your sugestion of the supposed ease with which we could change into a politicians' republic displays a complerte ignorance of our very successful constitution and the way our Westminster system of government works. The idea of a republic for Australia is something that was put to rest back in 1999 when a majority of all States voted against it, and support for this has rightly declined in the ensuing years.
New Zealand long ago declined to join Australia, but if they chose to do so now it is up to them.
Our coat of arms is fine, leave it alone, and trying to abolishing the States is a complete and utter waste of time.
As for a canal from Darwin to Adelaide, this must be the silliest idea of the lot, as any scientist would tell you that even if it could be done, most of the water would evaporate before it reached Adelaide.

by Tony Spargo on July 31, 2009 at 03:11 PM

The only problem with amalgamating with New Zealand is that they are much advanced in their relationship with their indigenous people. Amalgamating with Australia would be a real step backward for the Maori people.

by Steve on August 09, 2009 at 07:18 AM

We have a population no larger than the greater cities of London or Paris and we have 3 layers of government Federal, State and Local. All with their own agenda and cost bases. In a country that needs to save money become more relevant and accountable this is sheer insanity.
Each layer of bureaucracy comes with it's own issues making it more difficult to govern efficiently.
Many of our functions are now controlled by our Federal government, let us complete the task, remove irrelevant and costly state governments. Amalgamate 70% of our local councils into larger Regional County Administrations. We would need no more than a dozen.
Imagine the cost savings and streamlining that were possible should this occur.
It will never though, why, too difficult, no one wants to make the hard decisions and most off all too many collective snouts in the trough unwilling to give up their perks whilst they are milking the country dry.
And no more drivel about the constitution etc, time we grew up.
Food for thought, what.

by Mike on August 09, 2009 at 10:19 AM

A quick comment on the Maori people. They migrated to New Zealand nearly 1000 years ago when New Zealand was fairly sub tropical and the central pacific quite dry. So availability of food would have been their main motivation for the migration. The Maoris found that other became known as the Maorioris. The Maoris exterminated them. But who were the Maorioris? Most probably they were related to one or more of the aboriginal tribes in Australia. The great migration of aboriginal people from Africa to India and then around South East Asia to Australia involved crossing at least the sea known as theTimor Gap to Papua and more than likely directly from Timor to Australia. (Australia's coast line was at least 300 kilometers further north at these times during the last Ice Age). So if these ancient peoples could cross the Timor sea then it is most likely that they crossed the Tasman sea which was also a lot narrower then.
Fortunately the ending of the Ice Age saved the aboriginal cultures in Australia and in the last 1000 years the Maoris didn't migrate further westwards.
This shouldn't stop some sort of better union between Australia and New Zealand. In fact when I first came to Australia in 1968 there was no need to have a passport and it was much like catching an internal flight within New Zealand (or Australia). The concerns about some Pacific Islanders having free access to New Zealand and hence to Australia caused the Australian Government to intstitute passport controls. For some years after travellors from Australia to New Zealand didn't need passports but you had to show your passport to gain re-entry into Australia. So it would not be creating anything new if the Australian and New Zealand governments at least went back to the system that prevailed until the early 1970's. Also at that time the NZ dollar was pegged to the Australian dollar at parity! So the concept of a common currency shouldn't be that hard to impliment.

by Brent Walker on August 09, 2009 at 10:48 AM

As a Kiwi I love Australia for the excitement, and I love NZ due to the scenery, both Aussies and Kiwis cannot deny the above. And I know alot of Aussies that loves the Kiwis compared to many bad people of there. But yes we both have our friendly competitions and jokes against each other. So I would like the two countries to join, but yous can still have the crocs and poisonous snakes.

by Rod on August 09, 2009 at 12:54 PM

please please please lets abolish the state governments... we pay their salaries for nothing...

by clawal on August 09, 2009 at 05:24 PM

FINALLY! I suggested this (move from state to larger regional governments) in an essay at uni about 15 years ok.. good to see at least being discussed.
wondering how they'll distribute stamp duty amongst the regional governments though...
I don't agree we should merge with NZ though - they are an indepentent nation with a much different history.

by chickenreturningtoroost on August 09, 2009 at 11:22 PM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

WHO WE ARE: Come join us, please

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES