The only thing that separates Australian Culture from our Friends in New Zealand is that 100k strip down the east coast. Get rid of that and we are still pretty much the same. It is quite amazing how different the Cultural cringers that live on the east coast are from the rest of Australia. We have never had doubts about who we are and we have not changed much.

This should properly be called "the trans-Tasman relationship" as the ANZAC relationship did not survive beyond 1915. When he was withdrawn from Gallipoli the commander of NZ forces volunteered his men to fight anywhere, so long as it was nowhere near the Australians.

The trans-Tasman authority regulating food standards is a significant example of the relationship at its best: practical, co-operative and economically beneficial all round. Closer co-operation on policing and biosecurity are slow but important, and have real economic, cultural and foreign policy implications.

NZ take a more thorough approach to corporate regulation, particularly in terms of competition, than Australia does - it is unfortunate that space restricted Cooke from exploring issues like this in greater detail. Squabbling over minor differences or inertia is one thing but the Kiwis are right to fear that where they have higher standards than Australia, they lack the power to insist that the more stringent standard be maintained.

Issues like a common currency would not be as big a leap as Cooke implies, as it would not depend heavily on Washington. NZ have plenty to teach us about dealing with Pacific states - economically as well as culturally or in terms of foreign policy - ignored in Australia for too long. The idea that we might gain from shutting up and listening is a concept that Australian decision-makers have not yet fully embraced. No wonder Helen Clark and others are cranky with us!

I think NZ could teach us a lot about social choices and moral values in the 21st century. While I am not advocating that we should become the West Island we should pay a bit more attention to what they are doing.

I don't think a common currency is really neccessary. The EU did it as their currencies were pegged together and it is striving for ever closer union. But for us different currencies might be handy to reflect different economies.

As far as CER goes; if we can sign a free trade agreement with China whose leadership shares few, if any, of our moral and social values then surely we can have close economic ties with NZ.

It's easy to take differences between governments as a sign of differences between populations, but that seems like an oversimplification to me. Australians and New Zealanders are about as similar as you can get. In fact, I don't think New South Walers are any more different from New Zealanders than Tasmanians are from Queenslanders.

I think a federation of the two countries - a "Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand" - would be a very sensible idea. Cooke talks about "a European Union-style community, with common borders and perhaps even a single currency", which is fair enough, except that it would be even easier for us. After all, we have the same language, the same institutions, the same basic culture and values, even the same head of state.

While we're at it, let's bring Canada on board too: we share pretty much all of this basic stuff with them too. We could use a bigger domestic market, but we can't squeeze more people onto this dry continent: with a federation of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ) we would have a domestic market of close to 60 million without putting any more strain on the environment.

Hello Ian

While I think an economic market between New Zealand and Oz has possibilities, I believe that New Zealand has been approached before and rejected idea (fear of becoming another state of Aus). Also current fed gov very much jumps to USA beat. For example, NZ (like Canada) refused involvement in Iraq. Australia would need to be less USA compliant for trade to work between other C'wealth countries.

I do not disagree with concept just can't see how it could be implemented.

Cheers

Hi Scout,

A new government can make things look more different than they really are. A change of government in Canberra would indicate a shift in public opinion, but not a radical reversal. The NZ Nationals came pretty close to forming a government after the last elections, but that doesn't mean that New Zealand society itself was teetering between two totally different visions of its place in the world.

I wonder how Canada's current government would have reacted if it had been in power when the Iraq war was being planned? "Canada" might not have looked so different from "Australia" if that had been the case. We have to remember that "Australia" didn't exactly support the war either: I don't remember vast numbers of people marching in the streets in support of the war.

I understand Kiwis not wanting to be absorbed into Australia, but perhaps they would feel less threatened by a CANZ federation because it would not be just their traditional big brother that they were dealing with? And maybe if Australia was part of something bigger (like CANZ), our government would feel less need to be so "USA compliant". CANZ already speaks with one voice at the UN.

You say "I do not disagree with concept just can't see how it could be implemented." My only possible response is that it will only happen if enough people - in all three countries - want it. I keep talking about it in the hope of creating a spark or two of interest. Ultimately it is up to the populations of the three countries to recognise that their similarities are far greater than their differences.