Dialogue: Joining Australia would make good sense today

If there were valid reasons for New Zealand's original
rejection of statehood in the Australian federation, they no longer apply, writes KEN THOMAS*.

One hundred years ago, New Zealanders declined the opportunity to join the new federation of Australian states.

The reasons of distance and communication problems had some validity, while the snob concept of cultural superiority also had an effect on the decision.

The die was cast and New Zealand continued as a proud, progressive country, albeit tied securely to the apron strings of Mother England. The First World War not only developed the Anzac spirit, it also focused and strengthened the New Zealand identity.

Sovereignty has much in common with virginity. Both are admirable in the development of a knowledge of oneself and provide an inner strength.

Neither state is greatly missed when a strong and positive partnership is entered into by mutual consent based on mutual appreciation.

The 1901 Australian constitution contains a clear opportunity for like-minded states to apply to join the federation. And the time is now.

Why should I, a dyed-in-the-wool Kiwi, whose great-grandparents emigrated to New Zealand in 1865, who has spent practically 40 years promoting the best interests of our community through the local government structures, advocate this step into the future? Quite simply to secure a future for my great-grandchildren other than in a Third World economy.

The year 2001 bears as much resemblance to 1901 as the Wright Brothers aircraft does to a Boeing 747. The 1901 communication concerns, physically or electronically, are invalid.

The flow of people between the two countries means few, if any, New Zealanders do not have friends or relatives in the "West Island" or do not find it easier to holiday there than in the North or South Islands.

So, what would we gain and what would we lose from joining Australia?

Initially, and perhaps selfishly, I would regain my self-respect in knowing that, as a citizen of the wider Australian federation, I was paying my fair share towards the governance and defence of the region.

I cannot blame the successive governments for the plight we are in, as identified by our new defence programme. Fewer than four million people, living in a country with responsibility for a huge coastline and economic zone, simply cannot afford the ships and aircraft necessary to adequately protect and supervise this responsibility.

The men and woman who join our Defence Forces are recognised worldwide for their skill and dedication. Those skills and attributes, which we can bring to a federation force alone, enhance our reputation as Kiwis.

New Zealand would retain its parliamentary system and representation, but as a state government - not a sovereign government.

We would also have representation as a state in the federal Government in Canberra and in the Senate, giving wider horizons to our more capable politicians and ensuring that Australasian policies would have regard to the expanded needs of the updated federation, with input from New Zealand in the formation of such policies.

Monetary policy, defence, justice, foreign affairs and income support (welfare) would become federal responsibilities, while our state government focused on New Zealand concerns.

The Treaty of Waitangi would remain the responsibility of New Zealand, including the costs of settlement. Any initiatives involving Aboriginal claims would, similarly, be excluded from New Zealand participation.

The closure of New Zealand embassies and high commissions would result in huge cost savings. This money could then be used more profitably.

It does not follow that New Zealanders would no longer fill international positions. Recent external Commonwealth appointments show that the likes of Don McKinnon and Dennis Marshall have the necessary attributes. So, too, at the World Trade Organisation, where Mike Moore won selection on his abilities, not just his country of origin.

Private-sector organisations, such as the sharemarket, would quickly follow - or perhaps lead - such amalgamation initiatives.

I can hear the screams of anguish from a wide range of sporting bodies, not least rugby, at a perceived loss of identity.

While I do not accept that the sanctity of the All Black status should intrude in the future of this union, I can acknowledge the interest. But just consider the intense rivalry of State of Origin matches involving New South Wales and Queensland.

Federation will never eliminate the "sheep" jokes that are so dear to our cousins. Neither will "ocker" jokes depart our scene. But, as the French say, "vive la difference." Like any alloy, it is the little extra that provides the strength.

The major obstacle to joining Australia is persuading our political parties to put country above self-interest. To persuade our big frogs in little ponds to accept such a change remains the problem.

But there is a strong desire among thinking New Zealanders that the change must come. Witness the mood of so many letters to the editor.

This land will always be my choice of residence; it is, indeed, Godzone. Regrettably, it also qualifies for the quotation, "Where every prospect pleases but only man is vile."

Let's be realists. Let's make federation the debate of the day.

* Ken Thomas is a former president of the Counties Association, vice-president of the Local Government Association and was the first Mayor of the Matamata Piako District Council.