As Ian says Australia was not composed of colonies rammed together. It was a thoughtfully negoiated next step in the growth and evolution of the Australian nation state. Nor was the EU composed of nation states rammed together. In fact it was prior attemps to ram them together that forced the change. I agree that EU gets bad press. Perhaps that is because it is only thing that can force Microsoft to bundle its goods in a competive way or stop vast amalgamations because they could not operate in EU, a market of 550 million. I recommend the book Why will the EU run the 21 Centuary to balance negative press. I would like to see us start thinking about what would a South Pacific Union look like and what the time lines might be.

"It has been recommended that Australia and New Zealand consider merging into one country. Seriously!"

We already are. Why are we still using passports?

If I follow your logic, Ian, you are positioning New Zealand as a colony rather than a sovereign nation.

>>Pericles, would you say that NSW, TAS, WA, SA, VIC and QLD were "rammed together for political expediency" in 1901, and, if so, that great strife has come of it? I do not, on either count, nor do I see why either ramming or strife would be the case with Australia and New Zealand.<<

When I spoke of countries being rammed together I had in mind rather more important areas of the world, such as the Balkans and the Middle East.

>>I am also not convinced that it would make equal sense to disband the Commonwealth and face the world as half a dozen separate countries<<

If you read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote, you will notice that my view it that it makes absolutely no sense to amalgamate Australia and New Zealand, hence, by deduction, it would be similarly stupid for Australia to return to pre-Commonwealth days.

>>A population of just 20 million people makes our international negotiating position difficult enough. Together with New Zealand, it would be somewhat improved.<<

I doubt that very much.

Who - apart from a few thousand extra bureaucrats with their noses in the trough - would benefit from the coming together?

And exactly how would our "international negotiating position" be improved by the addition of 4,168,338 people?* and another piffling 16% on joint GNP?

And what is this nonsense, comparing us to the European Union? As Whispering Ted points out, they are twenty times A/NZ together. And who, in the name of all that is tradeable, would constitute a "South Pacific Union"? The Solomon Islands? Fiji?

No, the only people who could possibly consider such a travesty would be the overpaid, under-performing, dead-weight tax-funded public service, earnestly sending "working parties" to the four corners of the world in order to put together a "discussion paper" that will ultimately be used for only one purpose.

Or perhaps thrown into the wastepaper bin.

*population counted at 0700GMT 30th January 2007

I don’t see much parallel between the EU and our situation, because the EU is made of vastly different cultures, mutually incomprehensible languages, conflicting institutions and ancient enmities. It has served its original function of stopping its members from going to war with each other.

Australia and New Zealand have never been enemies and our cultures are about as similar as you could get, which seems to me to be one of the strongest arguments for a Commonwealth of ANZ. As Rainier says, “Why are we still using passports?” As we do not share that same cultural similarity with our other island neighbours, I wonder at the logic behind a “South Pacific Union”.

Pericles, my logic does not suggest that I am classifying either New Zealand or Australia as a colony. In the 1890s, NSW, TAS, WA, SA, NZ, VIC and QLD were seven self-governing polities whose similarities were far greater than their differences. In the 2000s, Australia and New Zealand are two self-governing polities whose similarities are far greater than their differences. Hence the parallel.

I appreciate that you do not feel that amalgamating ANZ makes sense. I was offering a reason why I think it would represent a logical continuation of our federation. I agree that the addition of New Zealand is a small step, but it is a step in the direction that I see as the right one.

I think an agreement with NZ based on the EU economic community and common market idea is well overdue.

You will never see Australia and NZ give up their identities as we have had them for so long. So the EU idea lets us keep our identities as we slowly evolve towards unity over time.

NZ needs to keep its Waitangi Treaty having special places on their Parliament, or they will have problems in their bi-cultural security.

A common market and common currency are a sensible idea. We could use a lower currency anyway, might be better for exports. An economic council with Waitangi principles would suit Fiji, Australia (with our Aboriginal representatives) and, if you like, Singapore. Why not?

A common border would be good. Passports should not be necessary, although photo ID cards and driver's licences would be a good security measure at customs. If we need customs at all. They already do this with the airlines with seat allocation.

Australia has special needs with quarantine to protect our fragile environment, but I'm sure we could work out something more efficient.

saintfletcher, I quite agree with you that "you will never see Australia and NZ give up their identities as we have had them for so long". In exactly the same way, you can imagine someone in the 1890s saying "you will never see Victoria and Queensland give up their identities ...".

What's more, they would have been right: our identities are still strong after a century of federation, and there is no reason why expanding that federation to include New Zealand would be any different. Canada has had its federation since 1867, but there has been no loss of identity for Alberta or Prince Edward Island.

Even more importantly, there has also been no loss of identity for Newfoundland, which (just like New Zealand) initially decided against federation and became a separate Dominion. That's why I think that the Australian (or indeed the Canadian) model makes more sense for us than the EU one.