Coinciding with the Canadian Prime Minister's speech in the Canberra - talking about cooperation between our two “middle power” countries - along with a growing dis-satisfaction, with trade arrangements, with foreign policy, mass immigration of the wrong sort, among other things - economist and author John Humphreys has written a piece called ‘Neither globalism nor protectionism’, invoking CANZUK, an acronym for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

CANZUK was founded in 2015, with the idea of maintaining a close affinity of cultural, diplomatic and military ties, and a common language. A pragmatic alliance of trusted, democratic partners with shared values.

At this time, March 2026, CANZUK is supported by 72% of Canadians; 68% of Australians; 75% of New Zealanders, and 70% of Britons.

John Humphreys writes that, rather than arguing about “more/less trade and more/less immigration”, we should concentrate on the “makeup” of our trade and immigration partners. Boost productivity, geopolitical power, and connect with people who share a similar culture.

On immigration, culture is important. The same relatively free movement between Australia and New Zealand could easily extend to Canada and Britain; common language, history, Monarchy, legal system, parliamentary system, and many aspects of culture are the same or very similar. Multiculturalism has been a failure. Cultural compatibility is a must.

Trade should be with reliable allies.

With regards to geopolitical power, which Humphreys admits is probably of little interest to Australians, Australia ranks 11th, only above South Korea, and below Brazil and Mexico. The CANZUK combination would rank 4th., a position the author says would give us “an unparalleled network of safe harbours and strategic bases around the world”.

Plenty of wrinkles to be ironed out but, as John Humphreys says, it's an idea “worth considering”.

Now if those countries were run by Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney (or Stephen Harper), John Howard and, well NZ is a problem, then it would be a good deal, but with the current crop of leaders?

Yes Graham. The quality of leadership would need to be addressed.