Before federation and the creation of Australia NZ was just another British colony. As I heard it there was talk of NZ joining the federation but the Oz mainland states wanted to spend large amounts of money on railways. The kiwis did not think that this was to their advantage and withdrew.
One seriously doubts that railways are the issue they once were and the dialogue should reopen, if fact it has. The day of the Nation state is drawing to a close, the Union is the new form. This started in Europe but this should be no surprise, so did the Nation State which took over from the City State. Therefore I think that we should move towards a union with NZ. This leaves things open for other countries to join in the future. After all the EU started with small agreements between Germany and France.

Quote plerdsus,

From the Australian side, thank heavens NZ didn't join our federation. Just think of the maori problem, which would dwarf the aboriginal problem.

End quote.

Can you explain what you mean by that please?

I doubt you will though.

Offer the Kiwis the political equivalent of two states (one for the North and one for the South Island) and the possibility is stronger.

More likely however is Auckland becoming the capital of a Confederation of South Pacific states ;-)

Perhaps the Maoris have a Pakeha problem.

StG,

You asked me to elaborate on the maori problem in NZ, and how that would dwarf the aboriginal problem we have here.

Firstly, the maoris are a much larger proportion of the NZ population than aboriginals are here, (about 10% I believe), and they are much more aggressive in pursuing their interests.

I gather for example that the maoris have a quaint idea that if they sell you land they get it back after a period of years, or when you die, I am not sure. I do know that an ancestor of mine went over there in the 1860's and bought a parcel of land from them, and then found that they had sold the same land to seven other purchasers.

For those who favour an EU approach to union, it would seem possible, as like them we have a big island adjacent to a small island. However to comply with EU requirements, we would need to establish a different aboriginal language in each state, with all official documents required to be published in all languages.

It would also be necessary for vehicles on the small island to travel on the opposite side of the road to those on the big island.

Unionists and internationalists never seem able to realise that nationalism goes with territoriality, which we share with most other mammals, and will never be exterminated. What is it about internationalism? Why is it so popular, considering that it is the antithesis of democracy?

Why is 10% Maori a problem? Harder to sweep under the carpet perhaps? Different attitudes to land title are common. In Europe it was dealt with by exinction of title.eg.the Saxons and the Celts, the Normans and the Saxons. If one does not believe that land can be sold then accepting money from as many as possible has its charms.
To have a Union is in no way saying that we should have the same 60,000 pages of rules. The structure of the EU is similar to VISA which is a club owned by its members. Nobody can buy it, it is not even listed. That is to say that the EU is more than a super state it is entirely different and powerful enough to have Jack Danials in 700ml bottles as per their rules. We would need to go through the process of formulating rules for ourselves. Alignment of possible members would take about 60 years as it did in Europe proberly longer. If one was to include all aborignal languages it would be in the order of 350 languages, obviously impractical. Why one per state, I thought we were a federation.
Mankinds groupings have grown from family groups to clans to tribes to city states to nation state and the process continues. There appears to be a direction here. What is important is we work for the best deal for all. Maximum benefit for the least pain