I see a union between Oz and NZ based on EU principles as a good first step to a South Pacific Union. This first step should be done carefully as not to preclude admission of future members. A SPU can ot be formed over night, I think 60 years is a likely time span. We have the EU as a model but the countries of this region have higher variability. In the next 60 years we should be preparing the ground. Increased cultural exchange. Student and teacher exchange. A generous number of bursaries for poorer students to study in Oz. The region should start to speak out on common issues on the world stage. We will properly need to offer sensitive assistance in policing social disorder and help establish the rule of law. These are just a few ideas.
If we don't they might join an Asian Union, China's influence is growing in the area. Th Union is the new political /cultural unit, nation states are going the way of the dinosaurs. The Union of South American is underway with economic alignment and internal assistance.
The African Union is more rudimentary at present but it exists.
I think that this subject needs ongoing discussion. 60 years is a long time but the EU took 50 years.

Whispering Ted, I agree with your suggestions in relation to the Pacific Island countries: cultural and educational exchanges, a common voice on common issues (where they exist), assistance in security and nation building. I just don’t see this as leading to any kind of political union, because I don’t think this group of countries is compatible on that level.

The EU has trouble enough with compatibility and, as you point out, the Pacific countries are even more varied than the European ones. I am all in favour of being on the best of terms with our neighbours, but that does not mean that I want EU-style “ever closer union” with them. After all, neighbours are not the same as family.

Union based on geography alone seems fated to lead to little more than bickering and bureaucracy, even among countries with far more in common than Australia and Vanuatu. You mention a “Union of South America”, but in fact no such thing is even close to being proposed: the five-member attempt at a common market (Mercosur) doesn’t even have mechanisms for sorting out bilateral disputes. For the same sort of reason, I see very little chance of ASEAN ever developing into an Asian Union, or of the African Union ever being more than a talking shop for deciding to do nothing in Darfur.

To me, Australia + New Zealand makes perfect sense because of our common culture, values and institutions: we are family. On a larger scale, I would say Canada + Australia + New Zealand makes sense for the same reasons – the CANZ Group already speaks with one voice at the UN – and that would put us on the top table at the G8

Forgive me for being picky, but could someone describe one single concrete and tangible benefit of Australia and new Zealand forming closer ties, whether with a common government as was initially put forward in the article, or in an EU-like alliance?

Just one.

But it needs to be specific and real, as opposed to warm and fuzzy.

From your previous posts, Pericles, it seems that you would reject the potential benefits as being insignificant. True, a domestic market 20% bigger would make a relatively small change to our economy and a population 20% bigger would make a relatively small difference to our international standing. Many of the barriers to business, work, travel and study have already been dealt with, but there are still benefits in removing those that remain.

The greater changes would come from joining with Canada, which also shares our basic culture, institutions and values. That would more than double the size of our economy and greatly increase opportunities for work and study, but if we can’t make it work with New Zealand, then we have little prospect of anything more ambitious

>>Many of the barriers to business, work, travel and study have already been dealt with, but there are still benefits in removing those that remain.<<

I'm yet to understand what these benefits might be, in concrete terms. Can anyone enlighten me?

>>joining with Canada... would more than double the size of our economy and greatly increase opportunities for work and study<<

I'd still like to hear examples of specific instances as opposed to generalities. What exactly would we be able to do, following "joining with Canada", that we cannot do now?

Is this too much to ask?

>>I’d still like to hear examples of specific instances as opposed to generalities. What exactly would we be able to do, following “joining with Canada”, that we cannot do now?

Pericles, Australians would be able to work, study and set up businesses in Canada with the same ease that we currently can in any Australian state. Without the need for visas or permits or quotas, our children would be able to choose to study not only at Melbourne University or Macquarie or UQ, but at the University of British Columbia or McGill, and Canadians would be able to do the same. Do you not see that as an advantage?

It seems that either you are suggesting that there were no benefits to the inhabitants of the Australian states in forming a federation a century ago, or that benefits of the same nature would not obtain in expanding that federation to include New Zealand and/or the Canadian provinces. I’m not sure which.