Plersdus... what you say about the maori problem is kind of destroyed by the fact that the Maoris don't have the same problems as the aboriginal communities.

I grew up in New Zealand. I found it quite strange, when at the age of nine I moved to Australia, and there were never more than one or two aboriginal kids in any of the schools I went to.
In New Zealand, the Maoris are a part of society - here they seem to be segregated in outback communities where alcoholism is rife.

Yes, there have been problems with native title in New Zealand, which undoubtedly contributes to paranoia in Australia. Funnily enough, it has been a Maori politician who has rode a wave of success railing against this state of affairs.

As for the article... I can assure you, New Zealand isn't interested in becoming another state of Australia.

Wouldn't that just make it the 52nd state of America?

TurnRightThenLeft,

For once we seem to be in complete agreement when you say that New Zealand is not interested in becoming part of Australia. As far as the maori problem is concerned, all I can say is thank heavens it is not our problem.

The most obvious difference between Aborignines and Maoris is that one were hunter-gathers and the other gardeners. This deep cultural diferencei s not due to raw intelligence, infact studies in NT show that aborignines have a higher raw intelligence than whites. It may be that Oz is not suitable for farming in the long run.
The EU model does not ask one party to join the other but for both to join a new entity. Quite a difference wouldn't you agree.

I am completely in favour of the proposal, and I would like to suggest ANZAC Day 2015 as a target date.

Our federation was meant to include the five states on the Australian continent plus Tasmania plus New Zealand. For reasons that probably made sense at the time, Tasmania (which had split from New South Wales in 1825) decided to join up, but New Zealand (which had split from NSW in 1840) didn't.

Even after a century, there is still no more difference between, for example, Victorians and New Zealanders than there is between Tasmanians and Queenslanders. Except, of course, that Victorians, Queenslanders and Tasmanians also see themselves as Australians, whereas New Zealanders obviously don't and won't.

The combined federation would have to be called something like "Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand", and the sporting teams would have to continue as they are, just like in the UK.

Given the amount of strife in the world when countries are rammed together for political expediency, I am staggered that this topic is being canvassed at all, let alone gathering a few voices in support.

It would actually make equal sense to dispense with the Commonwealth entirely, and go back to individual States.

We have far too many pointless activities keeping our Public Servants spending our hard-earned money to give this idea house-room. Next thing you know there's be a committee, a Quango, a department and a Minister, all on fat salaries, stupendous perks, limitless travel budgets and mind-numbing superannuation entitlements.

It's a joke, and it has gone quite far enough.

Pericles, would you say that NSW, TAS, WA, SA, VIC and QLD were "rammed together for political expediency" in 1901, and, if so, that great strife has come of it? I do not, on either count, nor do I see why either ramming or strife would be the case with Australia and New Zealand.

I am also not convinced that it would make equal sense to disband the Commonwealth and face the world as half a dozen separate countries. A population of just 20 million people makes our international negotiating position difficult enough. Together with New Zealand, it would be somewhat improved. Separated, it would be significantly harmed.