Should New Zealand Become Australia's Seventh State? A Debate Reignited

A provocative opinion piece published in The Post earlier this month has reignited one of the oldest debates in trans-Tasman politics — whether New Zealand should give up its sovereignty and become Australia's seventh state. The discussion has since spilled across talkback radio, social media, and the commentary pages, drawing sharp responses from politicians, legal experts, Māori leaders, and the general public.

How it started

Political commentator and former National Party parliamentary staffer David Farrar sparked the debate by arguing that New Zealand should take up the 125-year-old invitation to become part of Australia. Farrar says the world has turned into a "might-is-right" environment since Trump took office, and that New Zealand needs to get bigger. "We're lucky, because we've got a country which we're very, very close to, we're culturally similar to, we're economically integrated to, and we'd be a lot safer if we're a bigger country," he said.

In his opinion piece, Farrar wrote: "Joining Australia will protect New Zealand, enhance Australia and benefit us all." His concerns were framed around Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's remarks at Davos, where Carney claimed the world's "rules-based order is gone, and is not returning." 

The broader backdrop is a growing anxiety about how loudly New Zealand should defend the rules-based order when Washington has been threatening to annex Greenland, pulling out of international organisations, and pursuing a foreign policy explicitly geared toward dismantling that order and replacing it with spheres of influence where smaller powers like New Zealand have little say. 

The pushback

The proposal was met with immediate and widespread opposition. Radio Waatea put the question to its audience and more than 40,000 people engaged across its digital platforms, with the vast majority rejecting the idea outright. One listener responded bluntly: "Answer of the day: No!!! But we could build a better relationship between the two countries." Another wrote: "Can't believe the question is even being asked??!!" 

Waatea publisher Matthew Tukaki dismissed the idea in a strongly worded response, calling it "nonsense" and arguing that "reducing the question of nationhood to GDP comparisons, defence spending or economies of scale misses the point entirely." He added that for Māori and many other New Zealanders, sovereignty is not a policy lever — it is existential. 

Former Prime Minister and constitutional lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer also weighed in with a detailed rebuttal. Palmer argued that advocates of the proposal "do not seem to understand the legal implications of what they propose," and warned that New Zealand would lose its seat in the United Nations General Assembly and its ability to negotiate its own trade treaties — a significant blow for a small trading nation. He described the push as "a panic driven by changes that have not yet occurred," adding that "once the change were done it would be impossible to undo." 

What it would actually mean

Under current constitutional arrangements, New Zealand would simply become a state of the existing Commonwealth of Australia. It would elect members to the federal parliament but would no longer have an independent voice in international forums. Foreign policy, defence, monetary policy, higher education, and pharmaceutical funding would all transfer to Canberra. Based on population, New Zealand would be entitled to about one-sixth of the seats in the Australian House of Representatives and, like other states, would elect 12 senators. 

Palmer also pointed to the economic argument, noting that New Zealand already has ANZCERTA — one of the deepest trade agreements in the world — giving it free trade with Australia for all goods and services. "In effect, this gives New Zealand all the advantages of being a state of Australia," he wrote, making full political union redundant. 

The Treaty question

A consistent theme throughout the debate has been Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Many commenters expressed concern that becoming part of Australia could dilute New Zealand's sovereignty and undermine decades of progress in recognising Māori rights, language revitalisation and co-governance structures. A commenter reflected the view of many: "Aotearoa is its own little unique part of the world. Let's keep our focus on getting it right here before we have other countries who do not, and would not, understand the relationship between our people as we live and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi." 

Political consensus

Farrar himself acknowledged that no party leader from any side of the political spectrum has publicly agreed with the idea, writing: "I am not at all surprised that no party leader would publicly agree with it. I partly wrote what I did, because I think it is a debate we should have — and one MPs can't actually lead on." 

The debate has since crossed the Tasman, with Farrar interviewed on Australian radio and television, and the story picked up by 9 News and Channel 10. For now, the proposal remains firmly in the realm of the theoretical — but in a world where the rules-based order feels increasingly fragile, it appears unlikely to be the last time the question is asked.

 

**collected and consolidated from social media