KEY POINTS:
We stormed the beaches at Gallipoli together, but it still remains a challenge to get Australia and New Zealand to combine their economic forces in international markets.
At this year's Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum in Sydney, much was made of the enduring symbolism of Anzac Day.
But at a qualitative level the two countries' genetic make-ups have diverged since our young men put their lives on the line in World War I. Australia has a more continental, optimistic approach, and New Zealand a more insular and somewhat pessimistic outlook which tends to define progress.
James Strong, the forum's Australian organiser, orchestrated the event's timing to take place three days before Anzac Day itself, cementing the imagery with a special wreath-laying ceremony at the Sydney Cenotaph.
The two Foreign Ministers - Winston Peters and Alexander Downer - drew on the Anzac legend in their public and subsequent private comments to the forum.
But forging transtasman commitments to work together on common international opportunities and threats the two countries face - free trade deals, climate change and tourism - appears much more complex.
The event - which brings together some 80 leaders from business, politics, academia, the cultural sectors, security and the bureaucracy - is held under Chatham House rules so that participants can speak frankly.
During the two days a number of joint initiatives were advanced - particularly by the New Zealand contingent - to ramp up the relationship.
But Australia - at this stage at least - does not appear to want to advance much beyond the single economic market (SEM) agenda.
The SEM is making good progress.
Businesses on both sides of the Tasman will be able to issue common prospectuses in each other's markets later this year.
Banking prudential supervision has to some extent been harmonised, and competition and consumer legislation are going the same way. Work is progressing on border issues to reduce freight and travel costs.
The work has flow-ons.
It is entirely probable that by the time New Zealand hosts the Rugby World Cup in 2011, transtasman travel (for Australian or New Zealand passport holders) will be almost as simple as flying domestically, as smart technologies such as biometric identification take the pain out of passenger queuing.
This will advance holiday travellers' interests as much as business travellers'.
Australian Treasurer Peter Costello and Finance Minister Michael Cullen - who attended the forum - are the SEM's main champions. They come from different perspectives.
Costello wants to make it much easier for the Australian companies that directly invest about $40 billion in New Zealand to carry out business. If the rulebooks are the same on either side, that task is much easier and less costly.
Cullen wants to do the same for New Zealand businesses. But he also wants to increase the connectivity between Australia and New Zealand as a form of economic insurance.
The conundrum New Zealand faces is whether it will lose any potential competitive advantages if it adopts Australia's more heavy handed regulations.
This is painstakingly incremental stuff, which the two Finance Ministers expect will ultimately result in a seamless transtasman business environment.
But there's a bigger problem which was writ large when the prospect for a common currency was raised.
A UMR poll - released on the first day of the forum - showed 49 per cent of New Zealanders support a common currency, a marked increase from the 21 per cent recorded in a 2000 survey.
What is even more telling is the result of an Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce survey which showed 66 per cent of the 490 respondents supported a single dollar - with 33 per cent against.
National leader John Key used the forum to build a public platform for a debate on the single currency. Key's contention is that the discussion is necessary, given the $100 billion of common investment between the two countries and the increasing "wall of capital" that is fuelling the Australian buy-up of many New Zealand companies.
Key argues a common currency would reduce the risk premium that New Zealand businesses pay for loans.
Cullen says New Zealand would lose control over monetary policy and makes the point that Costello does not favour a common currency. Such a currency would come from New Zealand adopting the Australian dollar, not from the adoption of a new Anzac dollar.
On the surface this is all a bit pat.
The issue has been discussed at ministerial level and would be achievable if each country gave way a bit on monetary policy and a joint Reserve Bank was formed.
But there's another factor driving Australian opposition to an Anzac dollar. That's the fear that Australia could end up in the same position as West Germany where the deutschmark took a long time to recover after the merger with East Germany.
These concerns - which have not been aired quite so frankly before - also underpin Australia's continued opposition to negotiating joint free trade deals with New Zealand.
It makes perfect sense for the two countries to forge joint FTAs which would help reduce the distortions that are being introduced into global trade by the plethora of trade agreements.
But Australia is concerned its negotiating hand will be constrained by New Zealand's differing interests - particularly agriculture.
Another factor is Australia's reluctance to be seen as what one senior source suggested - a "welfare agency" for New Zealand.
On climate change, New Zealand participants proposed a joint emissions trading regime and joint policy initiatives to tackle the threats both countries face from the food and devil miles issues.
Cullen acknowledges it is difficult to keep Australia's attention.
But there are compelling reasons why that should change.
Australia now has the fourth largest amount of funds under management in the world. The UMR poll showed 52 per cent thought the increasing ownership was "bad" for New Zealand.
One way to make the opposition redundant would be to recapture the Anzac spirit in our dealings with third markets. Our modern day threats - particularly climate change - are potentially much more devastating than World War I.
