New Zealanders and Australians have a relationship that few other countries around the world can claim to enjoy.

Sure, when it comes to sport we love a good rivalry and few will deny the intensity of the Australian/New Zealand rivalry. It goes so far as to have inspired t-shirts which read “I support two teams: N.Z. and anyone who plays Australia”. Whether it is rugby league or netball, cricket or hockey there are few things New Zealanders love more than to beat Australia.

Nor is it without controversy. Few who have heard of it – indeed seen the footage from the day – will forget the infamous underarm incident where, on the last ball of a cricket One Day International fixture Australian bowler Ian Chappell bowled an underarm delivery to stop the New Zealand batsman hitting the ball for six to score the winning runs. The furore that followed is the stuff of legend, but it is true that the batsman threw his bat away in disgust.

Nor is it without politics – the closeness of the collaboration between the governing boards of New Zealand and Australian codes – and the implications for both countries when competitions organized fall apart is news on both sides of the Tasman Sea.

Culturally, there are many similarities. For example, whilst I do not know if Australia has the medical drama Shortland Street on its television channels, over the years New Zealand television has had a number of Australian dramas including police drama Blue Heelers and Neighbours. Whether it is culinary, sporting, historical or , if it has happened in Australia, chances are good a person or people have tried to emulate it here in New Zealand.

There are differences though. Aside from the obvious ones, there are some – at times irksome – political differences that occasionally grate on both sides of the Tasman Sea. Defence, immigration, foreign policy differences and crime are the major ones, which I explore briefly below.

For Australians, perhaps the biggest is defence, which is somewhat understandable given New Zealand’s long term tendency to spend as little as it possibly can on our armed forces. Yet this is tempered by Australia’s tendency to view the U.S. as the true leader of the free world despite the latter having shown demonstrable contempt for it and the principles on which most of the democratic world is built.

A second matter is immigration. New Zealand and Australia have a migration agreement that means no visa is needed for Australian and New Zealand citizens of good character to move between the two countries or settle in one or the other. With Australia’s significantly larger economy and higher incomes, it is no surprise that many New Zealanders have packed up and moved across the Tasman Sea that people in both countries colloquially call “the ditch”.

It has not always been so friendly though. In 2001, the then Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard imposed restrictions on New Zealanders which effectively meant that although we could still move as described above, there was virtually no path for New Zealanders to become Australian citizens. This caused some political angst on this side of the salt water, as it meant restrictions on voting, accessing social services and other support that people from other countries who did become citizens could access.

An unfortunate extension of this comes into play when New Zealanders commit criminal offences in Australia. The land down under, also known as “the lucky country”, has a conservative approach to crime, part of which includes potentially deporting anyone who has committed a serious crime. That in itself is not so much of a problem, as the fact that it has been enforced without regard to how long New Zealanders might have lived in Australia, leading in at least a few cases to people who had been there since they were toddlers, being deported to a country where they have no social support, no home, job or bank account. These are called Section 501 offenders, after the section of the legislation that enables the deportations.

The final issue where there are problems between New Zealand and Australia is most likely their foreign policy. Australia, despite what uneducated Americans will have you believe, has been one of America’s most staunch supporters for as long as I can remember and right through the Cold War. Where America goes, Australia has hastened almost without a second thought for the potential consequences, to follow. Australia has been one of the most persistently lagging western nations on climate change, a ready contributor to American wars and – until last night’s election result – potentially looking at a Trumpian government.

With all of this said, when it comes to disasters and our alliance in two world wars, and a bunch of smaller conflicts, when trouble strikes Australia – you beautiful people – have been absolutely and utterly our best mates. When, for example Christchurch was devastated in February 2011 by a violent aftershock from an earlier earthquake, Australia were first to offer help. Several hours later when Australian Federal Police arrived at Christchurch airport from all of the states to assist, they got probably the only standing ovation Australian police have ever had here. Equally, a few weeks earlier during massive flash flooding caused by prolonged thunderstorms in Queensland, New Zealand’s offer of help with search and rescue had been warmly received. More recently during Australian bush fires in 2020 New Zealand military and Civil Defence personnel were on the ground helping their Australian counterparts.

When A.N.ZA.C. Day rolls around each year, Australian flags join with New Zealand and Turkish flags to commemorate those who were lost at Gallipoli. We recall the conflicts in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Pacific and elsewhere. When Australia and New Zealand were organising the East Timor intervention in 1999, it was our first combined large scale deployment in the southeast Asian area since the Vietnam War.

So, thanks very much for all you do Australia. That doesn’t necessarily mean we want you to win the next _______ World Cup, but for what it is and given our histories as individual nations and our collective history…

CHEERS MATE.

A single voice is not a conversation. What do you think?