Responding to Sir Geoffrey

Former PM Sir Geoffrey Palmer has written a column disagreeing with my call for New Zealand to become the seventh state of Australia. It is a very reasonable column, and I’ll use the blog to respond to some of the points here.

There is no respect in which Australia differs more from New Zealand than its constitutional structures and decision-making.

To give up the advantage of being a sovereign state to become a state of Australia means New Zealanders would have a very limited input into the decisions of the new government.

Yep that is the downside of not being a sovereign state. However I would point out state governments in Australia still provide many of the most important services to the public such as health, education and police. And we would be almost the third largest Australian state with 12 Senators and 28 MPs, which would be the balance of power often.

It also means New Zealand’s voice would  be  eliminated  at the international level and in the councils of the world.

There are two respects in which this would be a loss.

We would no longer have a seat in the United Nations General Assembly. .

New Zealand would lose its capacity to negotiate and participate in the making of treaties that apply to New Zealand, both multilateral and bilateral.

As a trading nation, that voice is essential and to lose it would be most unfortunate and have deleterious economic consequences.  

I think Sir Geoffrey overlooks the premise made by Mark Carney and myself. In the new world order of nationalism, multilateral institutions are far far far less useful and powerful. It is their weakening that makes us needing to be bigger and stronger. Wishing the world hasn’t changed doesn’t make it so.

As for a vote in the UN General Assembly. Even putting aside its general impotence, how often do Australia and NZ vote differently in the UN? Would an Albanese Government vote differently to a (say) Hipkins Government. Very unlikely.

The history of Australia’s written constitution, as interpreted by the High Court of Australia, places considerable limits upon the capacity of the Commonwealth to govern effectively.  

I found that out when assisting Sir Owen Woodhouse in Australia during the days of the Whitlam  government.

The Prime Minister wished to enact a measure comparable to the New Zealand accident compensation legislation. But there was an absence of federal power to do so.

This is actually a good thing for NZ, if we joined. It means we could keep ACC. I like having limits on the power of a federal government.

There are profound legal differences between a federation of limited central powers and a unitary state, such as New Zealand, where all the power lies with a single  government.

Yep, and if you are a state, those differences work to your benefit. Canberra can’t tell you what to do on everything.

New Zealand already has in force one of the deepest and most comprehensive trade agreements in the world: the Australia- New Zealand Economic Relations Trade Agreement 1983, known as ANZCERTA.

In effect, this gives New Zealand all the advantages of being a state of Australia.

New Zealand has free trade with Australia for all goods, including agricultural products. And it includes all services as well.

Therefore there would be precious little advantage for New Zealand to become a single state, rather than a separate country.

It is because we are so economically integrated that it would be easy to become a state. The key thing missing is that when a super-power starts throwing its weight around, Australia is not going to economically defend New Zealand. If Trump puts a 200% tariff on our lamb exports because he doesn’t like our copyright law, we’re screwed, However if part of Australia, we can’t be singled out – and Australia as a whole would work to reverse them.

I’d also point out if we are a state of Australia, they could no longer deport the 501s to us. No such thing as an internal deportation.

I recall when Michael Kirby, the distinguished Australian judge, years ago made a proposal that New Zealand should be two states of Australia, not one.

That would not be acceptable either.

That would be great, but I don’t think we could convince the Aussies of that – even after a few drinks on Melbourne Cup day. Having 24 Senators instead of 12 would make us incredibly powerful in Australia – equal to NSW and Victoria combined in the Senate.

 It would hand over the interpretation of the law to the High Court  of Australia.

The NZ Supreme Court would rule on most NZ legal issues. The Australian High Court on federal law issues. There would be an appeal on issues such as whether a state law breaches the constitution.

Under what is proposed, major taxation decisions would not be made in New Zealand.

That is an advantage as 99% of Australians pay less income tax than New Zealanders on the same income.

New Zealand would be easily outvoted in both the Australian House of Representatives and the Senate.

That makes the mistake of think the Australian House and Senate vote as a bloc. They are divided on many issues. The 28 NZ MPs and 12 NZ Senators could well prove decisive on many issues.

The post Responding to Sir Geoffrey first appeared on Kiwiblog.