Why aren't New Zealand and Australia one Country?

[@mitchellgruninger9992]

Not the best video ngl. New Zealand and Australia will remain seperate unless the UK, New Zealand and Australia form a larger union with possibly Canada. Outside of that you probably won't have a unified government end of story. Australians don't want it and Kiwis don't want it unless there is the UK involved. I won't talk about the inaccuracies.

Australia doesn't need to join anybody but we would let NZ join Australia because it's in our constitution and they are our neighbour. We wouldn't join the U.K. because we don't need to and it wouldn't benefit Australia.

[@mitchellgruninger9992]

@ i would debate otherwise but youtube debates are cringe. Let's leave it at we're both entitled to our opinions.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

I mean, you mention inaccuracies, but New Zealand has held public polls where the question "would New Zealand be better off in Australia" has been positively answered by a majority.

[@polishmappingpresents4609]

This guy is so underrated, he deserves more popularity then he has

[@williambarraclough8712]

Innit

[@thebullfrog9416]

Canzuk Will happen before Australia and New Zealand come together coming from an Australian

[@joelhanson222]

I think the only reason us kiwis will join the Australians would be for Canzuk 🇳🇿🇦🇺

[@EvarlastingTalk]

The reason why New Zealand is not mergering with Australia is because New Zealand doesnt want to be known as part of a country who lost a war against Emus.

[@beau9956]

Bro that was weeks ago!

[@loneprimate]

Why doesn't Australia become part of New Zealand?

[@brinkofinasnity6284]

why arent US and Canada one country?

[@bensanderson7144]

Quebec

[@andrewnield9827]

I just found your channel and I’m honestly surprised how low your subscriber count is considering you video quality, keep up your good work your videos are genuinely good

[@annephilipson4964]

I am also surprised

[@wakawaata9268]

I hope it never happens. Like it just the way it is.

[@adammuggleton4107]

I like the idea of us both forming a union. I’m Australian and I’m a New Zealander. What a message to to world!❤

[@trinidie8156]

You are not from new zealand

[@youtubemedia3978]

United kingdom boys

[@Evil.Totoro]

In 1901 it took a ship a month to travel from NZ to Australia? Ships were crossing the Atlantic in a week by tht time.. what’s up with the waters down there.

[@horatiotodd8723]

Very windy

[@davemclean3899]

It would be interesting after the passing of the Queen if both countries to form republics and seek a union.

[@leedscity6881]

Kind of a dumb question really it's like saying why aren't Scotland, England and Wales one county.

[@BajanEnglishman51]

Uh *they are*

[@adamlauina491]

Yeah. We have our own identities. We share a lot of similarities but we have a healthy rivalry which is always held in high regards lol

[@petey960]

In some ways it would be cool if Oz & Kiwi were one nation with a population of over 31 million but other ways are too different plus the kiwis talk funny 😄 kidding.

[@thequartersfooty]

Personally as an Australian-New Zealander, I don't see the harm in Australia and New Zealand combining. After all in the constitution the invite is still there for New Zealand to join after 123 years. Plus Australia and New Zealand went to hell and back together in the wars, the ANZAC's. We're very similar to each other in culture and heritage. The debate of distance between the two countries, Sydney and Wellington is 2,225 km. Look at the distance between Hawaii and California which is 3992 km apart from each and Hawaii is a state of the United States. I reckon what will cause New Zealand to finally make the call to join will be if the economy downturn make a turn for the worse, and ever since the covid-19 pandemic NZ's economy has been hit rather badly.

[@dinan_7348]

The reason this would never work is because New Zealand has a vastly different national identity to Australia and different political ideals. Because of Australia's relationship with states unlike the United States (Where States have more autonomy) New Zealand would be treated like a state and have no opinion in parliament and low autonomy for how much identity they posses. They also have the population of Sydney which would mean they have 0 autonomy even know they have a vastly different political ideal to Australia. To prove this Australia to date follows a conservative based government rather New Zealand has a democratic - socialist PM which proves the different identities the two countries have. This would also mean that the Maori population would also be left in the dust because of cut funding from the government. This would only lead to carnage and would never happen in any circumstance including a joint alliance with the UK, Australia and New Zealand need to have autonomy for their populous to prove.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

You don't really know much about Australia and New Zealand do you? Almost all of that is wrong.

[@dinan_7348]

@@TheSamuraijim87 To expand on my opinion, I have seen how Australia has treated (and still treats) it's indigenous population the Aboriginals compared to New Zealand which allows Maori people to have a voice through a council which can either allow or discard legislation in New Zealander Parliament. Rather the only legislative or voice opening initiatives in Australia for the first nation's population is the aboriginal land rights act which allows aboriginal people to have land. But this legislative act is redundant because the land can easily be seceded if iron or other lucrative items are found on the land, also it doesn't provide any voice in legislation because all the land is given up in the Northern Territory which has less senators because it is a territory, to further prove this the first Aboriginal Person in Australian Parliament only occurred 4 years ago rather the Maori Council was setup in the 1930's showing us how different we act towards our indigenous populations. Now onto why this effects both indigenous populations if New Zealand and Australia were to join the Maori Council would probably dismantled as it doesn't line up with the current indigenous legislation and the resources towards both indigenous populations would be restricted such as education programs towards aboriginal communities and other alike, the same goes for Maori institutions. Sorry about the original comment it was more of a rant than a informative comment but I don't why you had to take is a call to action. Anyway hopefully you understand my point of view now.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

@@dinan_7348 i would still say that in the event of a union, the chance that the Maori Council would be dismantled is essentially zero. Nor would there be any chance of the treaty of Waitangi being dismantled. It's a huge - and offensive - misconception that Australia would attempt to backslide on the progress made by New Zealand. There would also be no appetite for dismantling that framework in the Australian public. There have been separate laws and treaties in differing jurisdictions in Australia. You're also well off with regard to the first Aboriginal member of Parliament, and with the growing movement toward treaty. Also, you make the rather arbitrary comment that if "New Zealand and Australia were to join, the Maori council would probably be dismantled as it doesn't line up with current legislation" but provide no evidence as to why this would be? Any half decent understanding of legislative process would assume that there would be no reduction or alterations to New Zealand's internal laws as a foundational point of the constitution. Australia and New Zealand are advanced and stable enough democracies that this would be a simple matter to negotiate. Moreover, there are many thousands of Maori Australians, to whom the Maori Council would have reasonable legal application. You also claim that Maori funding would be cut, but again, give no argument as to why, despite the fact that Australia has a budget exponentially larger than New Zealand's. Remember that things began much, much differently in New Zealand. New Zealand had the opportunity to make the singular treaty of Waitangi because of the far greater degree of uniformity and unity among the Maori. It started New Zealand in a position far in advance of Australia. And you talk about "The Aboriginals" as though they are a singular, uniform whole. But as it came to form itself, Australia had *hundreds* of different nations and languages that had to be navigated, and had a colonial population which had little interest in learning at that time, whereas this was clearly not an obstacle to anywhere near the same degree in New Zealand. This is to say nothing of the colossal differences in population, territorial extent and workload between Australia and New Zealand. We have Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander flags in our modern day, but there was no uniformity until very recently - for context, the Aboriginal Flag was designed in 1971, began gaining momentum as land rights began to grow as a movement, and was finally adopted in 1995. A good metaphor would be that the creation of New Zealand and establishing its relationship with the Maori was building a house. It's a very good house. There is much that Australia can and should admire in New Zealand's treatment of its indigenous peoples. But the New Zealand "house" began with a foundation and frame in place. The block of land was manageable and the task was clear On the other hand, the creation of Australia was building a *city* in a desert island. There was no framework or foundation in place. The city is flawed and imperfect. Much needs to be done to make it a paradise for all. But it still stands. But how much greater was the degree of work to build Australia's flawed city compared to New Zealand's lovely house? I *do not* say any of this to absolve Australia of its sins. *The sins of Australia against the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are awful sins* . End of story. And they are a cross Australia needs to bear and work through to heal. But it is somewhat poor form to tout New Zealand's superior indigenous treatment when there were many aces in New Zealand's sleeve to begin with, which Australia never had. If Australia needs to own its sins - and there is no question that it really does - then New Zealand needs to own its privilege. Not make rants that essentially amount to statements that "we are better than you" when New Zealand started the race miles ahead. It would be like boasting that Australia is better because of its greater wealth - but that wealth was in the ground thousands of years ago (and as you mentioned, it was taken from land stolen from Indigenous people). Australia's wealth was a privilege Australia began with, or committed vile deeds to gain. Boasting about, or based upon, unearned privilege is meaningless vanity.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

Also, your commentary regarding the "political ideals", of Australia and New Zealand being wildly divergent and incompatible, is fairly inaccurate. Both nations follow the same Westminster parliamentary system. It is true that New Zealand presently has a progressive government, led by Ms Ardern, who took office in 2017. While Australia has currently got a conservative government, it had a progressive government as late as 2013. New Zealand does however, have a very considerable conservative party, who held power from 2008 to 2017. Both nations have centre-left and centre right political parties, who the people of both nations tend to alternate between. Your statement that this "proves the different identities the two countries have" is essentially meaningless, as both periodically alternate between parties following similar centre-left and centre-right platforms. Also what you're saying about "Australia's relationship with states like the United States, (where states have more autonomy) New Zealand would be treated like a state and have no opinion in Parliament and low autonomy" is uninformed and contradictory. Firstly, you've entirely contradicted yourself. While it is true that Australia has a relationship with the US, you're claiming this would mean "New Zealand would be treated like a state and have no opinion in parliament". But most US law functions on a state by state basis, with a very light handed federal government presence from Washington, and considerable differences between states, so following the US model would *benefit* a smaller nation like New Zealand, which would probably be two states, North and South Island. Secondly, you clearly have little constitutional knowledge of how Australia operates. Australia was formed on the basis of *protecting* smaller provinces from larger ones, and Australia has an entire section of its parliament - the Senate - *dedicated to defending* the interests of smaller provinces like Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia, from larger, wealthier provinces like New South Wales and Victoria. So your assertion that New Zealand would suffer, or would "have no opinion in parliament and low autonomy" under such an arrangement, is meaningless, because the union, if it ever happened, would likely be on the basis of incorporating two additional provinces, North Island and South Island, as equal states. All States in Australia have an equal voice in the Senate, which is one of the foundational points of the Australian constitution. Your final comment "The Maori population would be left in the dust because of cut funding from the Government" is largely arbitrary and unsubstantiated, so has no real meaning. Especially considering that in addition to its own internal incomes, New Zealand, if it were two extra states, would have access to the additional budget capacity of Australia, which is overwhelmingly larger than New Zealand.

[@dinan_7348]

@@TheSamuraijim87 I am sorry for how vague my comment was I was In a rush when posted. Also I don't know how the comment at the end has anything to do with my point. I was never saying that Australia's treatment of Aboriginal people were good and should be excused and I never said that we shouldn't look up to New Zealand for answers to treat our indigenous population. Now to expand on my opinion further, the reason I was saying that legislation or institutions would be shut down, is because of the plentiful history of institutional shutdowns in Australia because of lack of funding by government, this is self evident. Even when the government tries to send plans or legislation acts it is normally pulled back by the opposing government. An example of the government pulling back legislation made by an opposing government is the legislative acts by Gough Whitlam, the legislative act by Gough Whitlam that allowed free education for universities allowed all students attending university to be paid by the government (with in reason) after Gough Whitlam was sacked (Largely due to the CIA operatives) the legislation was pulled back. This shows us that even when legislation for Aboriginal care is approved it would most likely be shutdown by a right wing prime minister in the interest of corporate Australia so funding for aboriginals can go to stuff that is more in the interest of corporate institutions. To show this to a greater extent the national judicial system has caused 28% of people in jail to be Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander. This whilst being a well known fact through out media and the Australian population has been largely ignored by the Australian government this again shows us the apathy from government towards the aboriginal population. But I am guessing as a rebuttal for this you will say 'Australia has a larger spending budget than New Zealand' if you were to say this that is completely irrelevant because the amount a government spends on a program doesn't show us the strategy or effort to achieve a goal. To prove this America is the largest spender on Healthcare but as you may know America has the worst healthcare in the OECD this is shown by the fact America gives a large portion of that money through privatized healthcare that make it overly expensive due to a corporate mentality. To prove a smaller spending budget can still achieve a good healthcare look to Cuba, despite being under massive blockades, tariffs and sanctions by the US they still maintain a age expectancy above the OECD average (the average is above the US) and they are largely regarded as the best healthcare. This proves to us that the larger the spending budget doesn't mean better the better the legislative act. Now onto you point about the Maori council not being dismantled. (Again I am sorry for being arbitrary in my comment.) The reason I said this is because a lot of evidence points to the fact that Australia in normality shuts down legislative acts that are within the corporate interest. Especially in a situation where Australia and New Zealand are in the process of joining together. There would be a lot of reworking in legislative acts in New Zealand and especially with the current Morrison government which acts with complete apathy going to the point where Morrison is so uncensored that he says and I quote 'there has never been slavery in Australia' despite the rich history of plantations in Queensland and the former colony of Papua New Guinea. Of course with the upcoming Australian election this might change but for now we have to work within this government. This is why I doubt that the Maori council wouldn't shutdown. Now onto your latest comment. I have already said and I will say again, it was a rant not a comment to be debated but I will debate your comment just for the Memes. The reason I said that they had vastly different political ideals is largely regarding to the legislative acts towards the Maori population that is what I was providing with in context I was not saying that they were following a different parliament I know they have both leached of their former overlords Britain and still obtain a Westminster parliament, I was just regarding to the current legislation towards the indigenous population. Your next point makes literally no sense because it has no self - evident rebuttal towards the original comment. I was saying that American states have more autonomy and are allowed to make there own legislation unless Washington discards it within reason. This proves in it self that American states have more Autonomy. I was saying that Australian states however having voice in the senate aren't allowed to make their own legislative acts. This in the current state of Australia is fine because all states act in uniformity and that's also why America doesn't system like that (Because their states don't act in uniformity) but if we were to add New Zealand to the equation it would become fairly messy. Because New Zealand provides for a completely different industry and a completely different indigenous population it would be hard for New Zealand as a state to provide for these industries. This government framework is also the reason for Western Australian popularity in independence due to their different ideals regarding their industry which is based of their mining industries.

[@michaelgrantham125]

It is the cultural differences that we love most about each other. We'd never risk losing that. Both see each other as the funny quirky brother you love unconditionally.

[@flowerpower8722]

No need. Everything is great the way it is. Our independence from each other is our respective strength. Also what the respective indigenous think of that idea matters a whole lot. And us travelling freely between us is very different to the whole world doing the same.

[@keithdevine8281]

No thank you very much,we are nothing alike and never will be.The trans Tasman agreement should be scrapped and there should be a visa reinstated. There is only one thing worse than new Zealander and that is two new Zealanders.

[@racketman2u]

For a start there's an ocean between the two, wouldn't it be more logical to ask why all the postage stamp european countries can't merge?

[@appytight8468]

Why don't the European Countries all merge? Simple. Vastly different laws, traditions, languages and cultural norms. NZ, AUS (and UK for that matter) have infinitely more in common with each other. Citizens of each have very little culture shock to deal with when moving to one of the others. In UK at least, Aussies and Kiwis are not really considered as foreigners. Maybe not "immediate family" but certainly "cousins".

[@brontewcat]

Security is one reason the Kiwis would not want to merge with Australia. New Zealand has disengaged from its former military alliance with the US and Australia, and is now a much smaller target. Why would it want to change that?

[@2hlsjhlghshfgjh]

You have offucally started world war 3 between nz and aus

[@flagassault9715]

Then it wouldn't be a world war

[@latenightlogic]

Arguing New Zealand should join Australia is exactly like arguing Canada should join the USA.

[@MasteringKnowledge]

As they should.

[@flagassault9715]

Arent they all part of the British Empire? Why would they see Australia as a trading rival?

[@2hlsjhlghshfgjh]

I dont think you get it

[@appytight8468]

All part of the British Empire? I think you're well over100 years behind the times. Although it's true that both AUS & NZ are "Commonwealth Realms", having the British Monarch as their Head of State. But both are fully independent soverign states - independent from Britain and independent from each other.

[@geograntomcu9764]

Nice vid you deserve 10 k subs

[@MasteringKnowledge]

thank you!

[@kountyt1870]

Old Zealand be like

[@salt1956]

I've thought about this subject from time to time. There are many shared cultural similarities. Same language, same British heritage, shared sporting interests to some degree. We were once joined as one colony for about 60 years. Not that anyone remembers that. And we all like each other. However, the indigenous question might be a deal-breaker. Canberra would not want to take on the native NZ Maori issues, especially on top of its own complex Aboriginal issues with the associated cost to the public purse. Also, from the Aboriginal perspective, they might fear their culture being displaced by the very public and very different Maori culture (costumes, dances, hakas, songs, carvings, outriggers) which seems to be far more attractive to foreign tourists. Does any country have two sets of native peoples? Otherwise, I wonder what Australia would have to gain from a merger? It might be more of a liability than anything, with large numbers of people in NZ already on benefits. But the idea is a pleasant one. The chance to change the flag and leave the off the Union Jack. Better combined sporting teams and cultural enrichment.

[@TheSamuraijim87]

Australia already has multiple - primarily Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, but also Maori Australians and additional Polynesian and Melanesian peoples. Papua New Guinea was previously part of Australia. Sadly, Australia does a bad job with relations with all.

[@foreheadisshot7464]

Bless you my aussie cousins (im actually aussie too my family comes from tasmania from like 100 years ago but im way more polynesian then australlian.)

[@Battleneter]

No one in NZ or Australia is pushing for the two countries to unite in the last 50+ years, I find these comments bizarre and VERY wrong. For around 10 years now immigration between the two countries has been nearly even with NZ's unemployment rates being lower for most of the last 10 years. There is all sorts of poorly researched or outdated information here.

[@AstroBound]

As an Australian living in New Zealand I think this is a bit silly. Also facts about residency are not quiet correct. It takes me 2 years staying in NZ to be eligible for permanent residency and 5 for citizenship. Im not 100% sure on the process for Kiwis in Aus but ive heard its a lot harder to get residency, citizenship and healthcare (medicare) for them. That aside we can travel and work freely in ether country without a visa.

[@morenz9079]

Why the hell would NZ want to combine with Aussie? We are better off on our own thank you.

[@megalodon3655]

Here’s some ideas for United countries what if the Iberian Union United today and please include all the territories Spain and Portugal had when they were at their zenith also please include the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire and the the territories it gained after the great Turkish war just for fun please. And what if the Mongol empire and the Mughal empire United today and just for fun please include them as one combined empire and include Siberia in it just for fun also nice video keep up the amazing awesome work have amazing peace.

[@robbyfn]

You could have touched on New Zealanders being recognised as domestic students in Australia and vice versa

[@tony-leebrizzell2654]

Yeh ; Na 🇳🇿

[@user-karenforchrist]

Ones an Island. The other is a land mass larger than an Island.

[@LuisDanielVillalobosBenitez]

But there comrades at all and there part of CANZUK trade

[@geoffaldwinckle1096]

It was not a month by ship, but it could taje many days.

[@cabotclarke9]

Probably never going to happen now that Australia is a police state!

[@FastKiwiBoss]

@Andrew Carroll you got that rite......wish I'd move to Oz years ago.....some think we're a small Australia, but in reality we're just big Fiji....

[@parziiich]

Wtf soccer? IT IS FOOTBALL

[@tonylove4800]

Look at a fucking map.

[@strluvsroblox1777]

I like new Zealand

[@officerdjr07]

how don't u have so many subs

[@2hlsjhlghshfgjh]

Im from nz and we in nz are very competive and and have petpeve with each other

[@kaizermierkrazy6886]

Us Aussies like to see it as a sibling rivalry

[@2hlsjhlghshfgjh]

Haha

[@CodeUK93]

FOOTBALL!!!!

[@gregmoore2386]

Yeah nah.

[@jeannibarber1799]

Wouldn't it be Australia becoming part of New Zealand

[@EvenWaysMusic]

CANZUK

[@Lakerfan_2002]

they really should just connect. nobody can tell the difference anyway

[@401bruh5]

Please don't say new Zealand and Australian flags are the same, new Zealands flags looks like doo doo

[@SuperRainbow_1234HD]

See the difference 🇭🇲🇳🇿

[@dallasfrost1996]

Nah, the N.Z flag looks way better.