They are a delicate balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces. The central government keeps wanting more control and the parts keep wanting more autonomy.
Some parts are forced into a federation. Some of the parts join the federation to get security and economies of scale. Some feel regional differences are too great and prefer to keep full sovereignty or having joined a federation want to break away. It is often a balance between feeling and thinking.
Quebec is not a lone example. This week’s vote changes nothing. It is still more captive of centrifugal rather than centripetal forces. What can be done to get these forces back into balance?
There is a good example for Canada and Quebec to follow … that of New Zealand. But New Zealand is a unitary country; what example can it offer?
A lot. In fact, New Zealand is as good as part of the Australian federation. The New Zealanders don’t know that, so don’t tell them. It is the fact that New Zealanders feel and think they are a separate nation that allows the extraordinary economic integration between the two nations.
In all the things that matter to the heart, New Zealand is, and Quebec could be, a separate nation. Separate Olympic Games teams, separate national anthem and a separate currency which allows the coins to be passed off. Vital tot his would be occasional wins against the bigger part of the de-facto federation at rugby and ice hockey. I was going to add cricket, but, of course, if the Quebecois had played cricket none of this would have happened.
In all the things that matter to the head and pocket, New Zealand is, and Quebec could be, part of the federation. Ministerial advisory councils, mutual recognition, tax, capital movement, labour movement, no tariffs. All the things that matter to well-being but to which no-one gives a moment’s attention.
This is the secret for Quebec. Let them feel they are a separate nation, but the thinking people will know that economically they are not.
New Zealand was invited into the Australian federation and declined. It is cited in the preamble of the Constitution. If it had joined, it would probably have become like Quebec … of sufficient difference from the rest of the federation to foment secession calls. As it is, it retains national pride and separate sovereignty and has spent much of the intervening years (especially the past 15) trying to integrate economically.
Western Australia, on the other hand, joined the federation and has been whinging ever since. In 1933 Western Australians voted overwhelmingly for secession in a referendum, but the pro-secession Nationalist Government was thrown out at the next election and nothing was done about it.
Further, the Western Australian Premier, Richard Court, seized upon the Quebec referendum and said that unless Western Australia was treated better, similar things could happen in Australia. The constant niggling by the West shows how much superior the New Zealand model is for Quebec.
The Australia-NZ Closer Economic Relations agreement began in January, 1983 and was accelerated with revision in 1988.
CER wove the nations together in virtually every aspect of the economic, political and legal systems that do not affect feelings of national pride and sovereignty. Virtually all tariffs and quotas went by 1990.
Services are being freed. But note the exceptions: broadcasting, post, airlines, telecommunications and shipping. These have historically involved national pride and values … flagships, culture in the media and so on.
Discriminatory government buying preferences have been removed. New Zealand companies are treated as favourably as Australian ones by state and federal governments.
The extent of the integration is that 73 per cent of New Zealand external investment goes to Australia and 44 per cent of its manufactured exports. New Zealand’s trade pattern with the six Australian states is probably not much different from Western Australia’s with the five others plus New Zealand.
Politically, New Zealand is on 24 of the 32 ministerial advisory councils, in effect being treated as an Australian state. These are nominally advisory only. In fact they chart the course of a lot of law and administration.
Product standards and the recognition of occupational qualifications have been dealt with very cleverly in a way that gives the appearance of sovereignty. There is no demand for uniformity, rather mutual recognition of each state, territory and NZ standard. In practice, they do not stray too much. An electrician or doctor in NSW or NZ can practice in Victoria.
Greater similarity is coming with trade practices, company registration, corporate law and accounting standards have already moved very close.
In short, all the things that matter economically are being integrated. Those things which affect feelings are not: criminal law and non-economic relations between people such as tort, trespass, marriage and divorce.
There are no entry requirements for people to move to visit, live or work, but you are allowed duty free grog allowance … a thing that gives people the feeling they are going into a separate country, but of no practical moment.
The main point about the NZ-Australia relationship is you can have a high degree of actual integration on economic matters which material benefit the people in both countries, while both feel and act in non-economic matters as if they are separate countries.
Is there any feeling among New Zealanders that they want to secede from Australia, like many Quebecois want to secede from Canada? The question simply does not arise. If anything they want to get closer economically. It suits us both and no-one’s national pride gets offended.