What has got into the Prime Minister that she pours cold water on the idea of closer integration with Australia, the subject of a weekend forum in Wellington attended by representatives of Governments and business in both countries? Her own Foreign Minister was there. The Australian Foreign Minister thought it important enough to attend. Helen Clark, as Prime Minister of the host country, might have at least looked in on the gathering. But perhaps she had more important things to do. Then, on radio yesterday she casually dismissed the seminar's principal suggestion - a common border for travel - as well as the less likely possibility of a common currency. Instead she remarked that, "Our countries have quite different histories and, if anything, the cultures of the two countries are moving further apart".
She was no doubt being utterly candid in her views. But if she is right that the Tasman neighbours are moving further apart, she ought at least to sound concerned about it. Closer economic relations have been regarded as high in New Zealand's interests by successive Governments for 25 years or more, and this Government has been no exception. Her Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, has worked hard with Australian Treasurer Peter Costello to put new vigour into clearing the remaining impediments to trade and business between the two countries.
Indeed, Helen Clark, too, cannot be faulted in her dealing with her Australian counterpart, John Howard, and the diplomacy she normally practises when the two countries disagree on defence and security issues. So why this lapse?
It is not the first time she has taken a dismissive attitude to a conference on public policy in which business takes a major role. She came to power extolling partnership with the private sector, mainly to dispel the Rogernomic principle that politics and business should be kept well apart. It begins to seem that her interest in such public policy exercises depends very much on whether she is in control.
This conference was an effort by Australians and New Zealanders to emulate the kind of dialogue Australia and the United States have had in recent years. For once, the Australian side has come to the table as enthusiastic as ours, even to the point of thinking we were in need of a spur. As one New Zealand participant, our political commentator Colin James, remarked, if that is the price of new impetus to CER, we can happily pay it.
It is vital that economic relations are separated as much as possible from defence questions at gatherings such as these. The two countries' strategic thinking does differ markedly. But much of that has to do with the war in Iraq. Australia clearly regards itself as a military supporter of the United States, right or wrong; New Zealand reserves its position. But in almost all conflict, most recently Afghanistan, this country sees the US cause as just and contributes unhesitatingly.
Defence intrudes on economic relations most sensitively on matters of border security. The Australians are wary of migrants treating New Zealand as a back door. New Zealand, as Helen Clark points out, are just as wary of a common border if it means adopting Australia's entry restrictions against the rest of the world. But who can say what restrictions may be necessary in the future as a response to terrorist threats? New Zealand should not dismiss negotiations towards a common border on the basis of entry provisions that may well change.
A common currency is a different prospect entirely. The day New Zealand submerges its monetary sovereignty in a common currency will be the day our trade has lost its diversity. In other words, it might never happen, and it need not. Without it, there remains much scope for easing commerce between the two countries to mutual advantage. But it requires unwavering political will at the top. Whatever was eating the Prime Minister, let's hope it passes.
<i>Editorial:</i> Clark's snub to Australia hard to take
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.