David,

For me, the basic idea of federation is to say “Yes, we have our differences, but essentially we subscribe to the same values, share the same institutions, and are part of the same culture. Our similarities are greater than our differences: let’s work together.” I am from New South Wales, but I do not see Queenslanders or Victorians as foreigners. By the same token, I do not see New Zealanders, Canadians or Brits as foreigners, and that is why I would like to take federation to the next stage.

Considering the first step of a federation of the Australian states and New Zealand, you ask “would Australians be interested in having a New Zealander as a joint Head of State or visa versa?” One of the advantages of sharing a monarch is that we don’t actually need to trouble ourselves with that, but I don’t see why it would be a problem. How, for example, do Victorians, Queenslanders, Western Australians, South Australians, Tasmanians and Territorians feel about having a New South Welshman as Prime Minister? If the polls are anything to go by, quite a few of them don’t seem to mind at all. Why? Because we agree to see our similarities as greater than our differences.

The problem of “the balance between the larger Australia and the smaller New Zealand” is really no different from that of larger New South Wales and smaller Tasmania. In fact, New Zealand’s population of 4 million would make it the third-largest state in the expanded federation, so Kiwis would probably have less to worry about than people from our less populous states.

On the whole, our federation works. Why wouldn’t it work in a Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand? Yes, there are technical issues, but they aren’t so very tricky. If we can agree that our similarities are greater than our differences, then we can find a way to work together. If not, of course, there is nothing to discuss.

David,

Reaction from others: I am actually part of a small international organisation called the Federal Commonwealth Society, which includes members from Australia, New Zealand, Eastern and Western Canada and all parts of the UK. Some members are republicans, most are monarchists, and I myself came around to accepting the monarchy precisely because I see it as a neutral institution capable of facilitating greater ties between us.

The group was founded by Brits who don’t like the idea of a federal Europe and would prefer a federation of culturally similar Commonwealth countries.

We have a discussion group at: http://www.6k2.com/myforum/fcs.html
and a site at: http://www.fcsworld.com

The expansion of the commonwealth to include New Zealand is an interesting issue as, absent Rugby and Netball, the similarities are far greater than the differences. But it is also curious that this scope for autonomy within a larger whole is being explored while the far greater distinction between urban and regional community and culture remains without a formal recognition by internal political boundaries.

A farmer from Atherton has far more common ground with another from Manjimup or Wanganui than he does with the residents of his State Capital. This political, social and cultural divergence has been evident for almost a century but has had minimal recognition due to some sort of implied "divine right" of urban punters to impose their will on regional minorities.

Unlike the republican ideal, regional States or Provinces are a constitutional reform that will provide real solutions to actual problems.

Regarding the FCS, I am one of the few republicans who would like a reference to the Commonwealth of Nations the constitution. I do believe that we should provide assurance that our links to this great society of nations will be maintained.

Good luck with your society, Ian. I wish you well.

As for regional government, I am less supportive. This is certainly contrary to federalism, where state powers are guaranteed. Adding more states is not the issue, but how state and federal powers are organised. The erosion of state powers continues under a number of pretexts and proponents of regional government have said little about what will be added to section 51. I would prefer to see the trend for federal expansion of powers arrested.

While state-federal duplication may be eliminated and funds saved, the quality and flexibility of services may be at risk. And our identity with our "region" will take generations to develop, if at all. In France, departmental government was established in 1790 to deliberately break down regional culture (equivalent to our states.) But regional government re-emerged, albeit with no legislative power and after 200 years, citizens identify more as Bretons, Alsacians (ect) in most areas.

David, I fail to see how regional government could be dismissed as "This is certainly contrary to federalism, where state powers are guaranteed', when Chapter VI of the Constitution is nothing but express provision for new states. New states for the regions ARE the issue.

You appear to have confused this point but I do agree with what you have said. The fairly frequent calls for the scrapping of states and replacement by enlarged local government is problematic in that Local Government is not even recognised under the Commonwealth Constitution. I also agree with your view on the maintenance of state powers. Blayney has the right idea, we just need to alter our perception of what a state can be (ie without a dominant metropolis) and make more of them.

Once the rural community has been protected from the ignorance and disinterest of urban dominated governnance by a new state boundary, their own legislature and their own fair share of the GST pie, you may discover that the major obstacle to the republican ideal, the rural vote, is a lot more comfortable with change.

Perseus, my understanding of the Regional Government proposal is the merging of local and state government, as you have worked out. If we are talking about splitting states or promoting territories, then the merits are determined on a case by case basis and with a referendum for it to take effect. I believe the New England referendum was popular in some areas, but Newcastle was not interested in becoming the new capital. An interesting result!

City and rural folk always have had their differences but ultimately it’s a symbiotic relationship -- they need each other.

Amazing! you have hooked me into making a comment about what you want to talk about when it was me who wrote the article!