When life on the pitch crosses the ditch
This promises to be an especially high holy sporting weekend, with Australians engaged on two traditional fronts: the Ashes at the Oval and the Bledisloe Cup in Sydney. We've spent a lot of time in recent weeks talking about Australia's relationships with Britain, America, Indonesia, and, most recently, China, but we've never explored the great trans-Tasman rivalry with New Zealand, a terrible lacuna.
Rather like the Ashes, the Bledisloe probably speaks more of the two nation's points of convergence rather than divergence. As everyone knows, the Aussies and Kiwis fought alongside each other in World War 1, which obviously explains the derivation of the term ANZACs, and even competed in the same team at the 1908 and 1912 Olympics under the banner of 'Australasia.' The preamble to the Australian Constitution speaks of New Zealand joining the new Federation, even though Wellington had already made it abundantly clear that it had no wish to do so.
This week John Key, the new-ish New Zealand prime minister, has been holding talks with Kevin Rudd in Canberra, at which they agreed to explore the creation of a new ANZAC force, and the possibility of joint deployments. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/20/2661939.htm). They also entered into a Bledisloe wager, with Kevin Rudd promising to wear an All Blacks tie on Monday if the Wallabies lose, and John Key promising to do the same in reverse. Surely this fixture merits more than that. Personally, I think John Key should be forced to sing Waltzing Maltilda wearing a pair of budgie-smugglers (Eds note: swimming trunks), and that Mr Rudd should gather his cabinet on the forecourt of Parliament House in Canberra to perform the haka (wouldn't the environment minister, Peter Garrett, do a spectacular haka?), but hey.
Some of the most recent immigration figures show that thousands of Kiwis are heading to Australia. 2007 saw the highest net outflow to Australia since 1988, which helped explain a government advertising campaign aimed at luring them home. In recent times, more Kiwis have been heading here than Poms, which brings to mind what has to be one of the most fabulous sledges of all-time: that golden quip from the former New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, who said that when a New Zealander comes to Australia it raises the IQ of both nations. (Admittedly, here I need to tread carefully, since my ticket to the Bledisloe came courtesy of my mother-in-law, who was born on the other side of the ditch but has since become one of the most patriotic Aussies I know.)
Why, the Wallabies even have a Kiwi coach, the immensely likeable Robbie Deans, whom many New Zealanders, especially from the South Island, thought should have taken charge of his native team.
For all the similarities, the rivalry obviously remains intense. Clearly there are many Australians who think that New Zealand suffers from 'small neighbour syndrome.' Conversely, clearly there are many Kiwis who have little doubt that they live in the best and most beautiful country on the planet.
There are many New Zealanders who reckon Australia could learn from them, whether it's in the international marketing of a faraway country (the 100% Pure New Zealand is widely seen as the gold standard in the tourism industry) or indigenous affairs. And curiously, just as various Australian models are often heralded by public policy think-tanks abroad, New Zealand is also looked upon as a laboratory of reform. Right now, there's talk, for instance, that the British Conservative Party leader David Cameron will seek to emulate New Zealand's 'Beehive' model of government, where top ministers are all housed in the same building, should he become Prime Minister.
Perhaps there are some Aussies who would like to see their own country adopt a Kiwi-style foreign policy, with its proud independence and occasional pugnacity. Perhaps there are Kiwis who envy Australia's close ties with Washington, and its commercial links with the emerging giants, China and India.
As with the Muldoon jibe, the rivalry can produce moments of delicious high humour. Here, for instance, are two clips from the ABC show The Gruen Transfer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Q36-9UUQE and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIppqNePdM), where two ad agencies were asked to come up with a campaign advocating the invasion of New Zealand.
Finally, here's something else that the Aussies and Kiwis are in agreement on at the moment - and that's the deterioration in the quality of international rugby following the end of the experimental law variations (ELVs), which encouraged a faster, more running game and less kicks at goal.
So far the tri-nations series has seen a yawn-fest of aerial ping-pong punctuated with kicks at goal from the South African fly-half (or five-eighth, as they known here), Morne Steyn. It's what many in the southern hemisphere think of as the northern hemisphere form of rugby.
So here's hoping for something different from the Bledisloe: a half- decent advertisement for such a glorious game.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Other way around about the Australian Constitution. It was the NZer (Reeves) who asked that the NZ clause be inserted. NZ had been part of the early conferences on Federation, then dropped out and the process went ahead without them, including the Australian colonial electorates of that era voting on the Constitution.
The Constitution was then taken by the Premiers to London in 1900 to discuss with Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary. Reeves was in London separately to look after NZ's interests and it was he who asked for the NZ clause to be inserted, in case NZ decided later to federate with the Australian colonies. THe Australians agreed as implicitly the Australian electorate had initially accepted NZ as part of the federation.
Also, the divergence of Australian and NZ foreign policy is not recent. NZ's focus during WW2 was on the European War whereas after December 1941 Australia's was on the Pacific. The differences in geography explain why.
Personally I think you couldn't ask for a better neighbour. That said, I hope the ABs go down tomorrow
Complain about this comment
As an Australian I would like Australia and NZ become even closer, perhaps even a union like England and Scotland enjoy. We never should have ended up as two separate nations. The Kiwis were invited to Federation, they just pulled a no-show.
Even though NZ would likely gain more from a union than Australia would, I suspect the opposition would be fierce from our long lost cousins. It's a pity.
Complain about this comment
You really need to get out of Sydney Nick.
An All Blacks game may be a unifying national occasion in NZ, but most Australians from outside Qld and NSW would be struggling to name more than one or two rugby players.
As for the indigenous affairs comparison, you might ask why Maori are emigrating to Australia at a considerably faster rate than Pakeha
Complain about this comment
If you wanted to see a style of rugby free of aerial ping pong, then tonights two NRL matches were the best examples of how great rugby league can be (as a sport, forgetting all that off-field drama). In fact, I'm surprised the AFL arn't looking at poaching rugby union players instead of Karmichael Hunt
As far as the political situation between Australia and NZ, I dont think there is ever a lot of effort in 'improving relations/ties' between the two countries. Because of the fact we all know that no matter what, we are cousins and we have each others back in times of trouble. It's not like with China where we are trying to suck up to Beijing. Wellington is that cousin of yours that can be annoying at times, but is a part of the family.
Complain about this comment
Sporting interests aside, Aussies and Kiwis have a language in common. The historical closeness of our countries (and constant migration flows) has given Australian English another dialect (NZ Eng) and in return we're hearing the tight clipped Kiwi vowels emanating from Victorian mouths in an ever-increasing natural manner. No communication breakdown here, just one big family swimming in the Tasman pool. Also, few nations on Earth can boast of a relationship with their neighbour that Australia and NZ share; discourse tinged with constant ridicule, rivalry and Rugby, in the same dulcet tones.
Complain about this comment
I've no objection to closer economic ties,although there's probably little benefit to Australia. However,given that New Zealand and Australia are separate nations, why are Kiwis entitled to free entry into Oz? There's no justification for this policy as it discriminates against other nationalities,this is an anomaly that should be eliminated.
NZ has been running its own independent foreign policy and certainly was not a reliable ally of Australia during WW2-so they play rugby, so what? More than half the population of Oz couldn't care less about rugby.
Complain about this comment
I take the attitude of if it aint broke, done fix it!
New Zealand seems to govern itself pretty well as does Oz, so i wouldnt bother trying to bring the two nations together.
There should be greater economic ties between the two nation but i wouldnt agree that both nations should form a union.
Complain about this comment
#6
'NZ..was not a reliable ally of Australia during WW2'
True, their focus remained on the European War, even during Australia's desperate days of 1942 I have some sympathy for them however.
NZ only had 1 Division, an elite infantry but only 1 Division. They had fought their way through Greece and Crete and were then in North Africa, having taken heavy losses along the way. It was difficult enough for Curtin to get the 6th and 7th Australian Divisions back to Australia, how much more difficult it would have been for a tiny country like NZ. We should remember that Curtin did not go ahead with his plan to bring back the 9th Division in 1942, at the request of FDR. Curtin could risk alienating Churchill, but he could not risk the US alliance
The main issue to do with defence is that Helen Clark let their air combat capacity lapse. NZ can no longer effectively defend the air/sea gap of northern Australia so the defence pact is skewed to Australia defending NZ
Complain about this comment
#8 wollemi,
Thanks for the explanation, however it doesn't really change my opinion,when defence(and immigration) issues are considered,NZ is basically a freeloader on Australia,I've heard Kiwis admit this. Their attitude is any potential enemies will have to go through Oz before they reach NZ. I've no objection to New Zealanders having an independent foreign policy as long as they independently defend themselves. If they want Oz to defend them they can join the Federation. The "Great Oz-NZ rivalry" is mainly confined to sports fans north of the Murray.
Complain about this comment
Although former NZ Prime Minister, Robert'Piggy'Muldoon used and was credited with the infamous IQ quip, he pinched the line from NZ journalist Tom Scott who (I think) first published it in the 'NZ Listener'.
Also #6 the immigration arrangements between Australia and NZ are in a sense not disciminatory as it is a two way street with Australians having equal rights of entry into NZ, rights we do not enjoy anywhere else in the world.
Complain about this comment
As an NZ citizen I don't want to be associated with Australia. For all its faults, NZ has made a treaty with its indigenous people. Australia still treats its indigenous people as aliens. When I first visited Australia, none of the Aussies I met had any idea who the tangata phenua - traditional owners - of their local place was.
Australians still think of their country as a big piece of real estate, that fell into their lap, to occupy, to renovate and to excavate and sell to China.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm...even after all the talk about the kicking game before the game, there were plenty of kicks and penalties, with Australia almost winning without scoring a single try
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the lesson you could have learned, mutikonka, is that "indigenous people" is not a single race or culture with the same historical relationship with the colonisers in every country. You might also note that much more of Australia is now under indigenous ownership than NZ . 15% of Australia for 2% of the population as opposed to 5% of NZ for 15% of the population. Treaty or no treaty, the Maori wuz robbed.
NZ may well become more strategically significant if the Great South Basin yields what Exxon and OMV hope it will. Then the luxury of adopting independent positions on foreign affairs, since other countries don't really care, may seem like a relic of the past.
Complain about this comment
While there maybe a love/hate relationship between Australia and New Zealand, there is no question of a close relationship. We are both immigrant countries with magnificent beauty in both the lands we live. We in the Antipodes are truly fortunate to live in either land.
Complain about this comment
#11 mutikonka,
Bren54 makes an interesting observation,I could add that those areas returned to their original owners in Australia sometimes contain billions in potential mineral wealth with consequent royalties to indigenous people,unlike NZ sheep paddocks. I'd be fascinated to follow the negotiations between the NZ government and the traditional Maori owners of a billion barrel oil field.
#10 Yillki,
The reciprocal right of entry has historically been of far more benefit to Kiwis than Australians,who cares about unrestricted entry to NZ?
Complain about this comment
#11
I'm with Bren 54 (#13) on this mutikonka, I question what advantage the Waitangi Treaty has given Maori over no treaty wrt land
Maori, 15% of the NZ population own 5% of the land
Native Americans, who also had treaties, 2.5% of the US population own 2.5% of the land
Whereas Aboriginal people (no treaty) 2%+ of the population own closer to 20% of the land - I think that's the current figure
Also terra nullius does not mean the land 'fell into their lap' It means the settlers bought stolen goods. The land had already been claimed as terra nullius by the Imperial Government in the penal era, basically an imperial theft, then later sold off. This is evident in Bourke's Proclamation of 1835 issued after an attempted (Batman) treaty
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=42
So if a treaty is to be considered in Australia, NZ is not the place to look for its advantages
Complain about this comment
One should also ask - with whom would the colonisers of Australia have made a treaty? Even now, there is not a universally recognised "leader" of all Australian indigenous peoples.
Would Batman's "treaty" with some people around the Yarra have been binding on all people south of the Murray and East of the Glenelg?
From what I can see, Maori society and culture already had more in common with that of the European settlers than Australian Aboriginal peoples at the time of invasion.
I've worked with many Maori in outback mining camps and they not only showed no sympathy for local indigenous people, they were mostly openly contemptuous of them in a way that only the worst white Australians were.
Yet time and time again I hear this facile observation that somehow NZ has dealt with "its indigenous people" more fairly than Australia.
There is NO fair way to occupy a land and displace its people.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick writes as though somehow the whole of Australia are rooting for the Wallaby team in this game. Yes, the former-Private School types in NSW/QLD perhaps - but most of NSW/QLD will be more interested in the NRL this weekend. And outside of NSW/QLD, they'll be watching the AFL.
As the BBC's Sydney correspondent, maybe Nick should get out and meet some rank-and-file Sydneysiders - rather than just the ex-Private School elite.
Complain about this comment
Interesting blog, if only beause it got me googling Peter Garett, I can only assume that had we someone who looked like that ordering us to recycle more and fly tip less we would be much closer to our targets than at present :D.
Complain about this comment
well said illawara68!
with the amount of attention nick gives rugby union in his blog, people may be misled to the point where they think the majority of australians like rugby union. in fact (yawnion) is joint 3rd with soccer in terms of importance while rugby league and the afl dominate in their respective geographical heartlands. The ARU struggles to compete domestically with the NRL to the point where they have used rugby league players (Wendell Sailor is one) to promote games against touring northern hemisphere sides. Whats more rugby unions tv viewing figures are poor and the rugby league youth competition the Toyota Cup has actually outrated several super 14 games in the past year.
Then again i wouldnt expect anything different from the bbc on this
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS