Finding some common ground (in the middle of the Tasman?)
WHILE politicians on both sides of The Ditch have been bullying each other in the playground of international diplomacy, a group of talented bureaucrats has been quietly devising a means of bringing harmony and sweet reasonableness to what has for more than 150 years been a battlefield rather than a brotherhood.
The deliberations of this enlightened coterie form the basis of a topsecret discussion paper which has been made available only to those who can be trusted: Winston Peters, Sir Les Patterson and this column. The odd hangeron has seen the document but so far, it’s been a closelyheld secret, apart from a speculative piece in the Tumbarumba Reporter by that organ’s racing editor.
The general public will soon be able to have its say in a series of public meetings and on a website called ‘‘Mates?’’, but for now the common people must rely on leaks, and here would be a good place to have one.
The document ‘‘Towards a TransTasman Treaty’’ will be made available in English and te reo in New Zealand and in Strine and Greek in Australia. As the title suggests, the paper examines the possibility of drawing up a binding agreement designed to smooth the relationship between two illassorted peoples, rather like the Treaty of Waitangi or a samesex marriage agreement.
The ‘‘treaty’’ begins by sorting out crucial differences which have undermined the trust which is essential in any relationship. A list in Appendix A allots to each country exclusive possession of longdisputed ‘‘national treasures.’’ Australia gets Lamingtons and Russell Crowe. (‘‘They’re welcome to him,’’ Winston Peters has commented in the margin) while New Zealand gets Phar Lap and pavlova. (‘‘Aw, come on, cobber, let’s have a fair suck of the sav,’’ was the gripe from Australia’s Minister of Culture.)
The elephant in the room, of course, is deportation, and while neither country has yet deported an elephant, the compulsory return of ‘‘undesirables’’ has dominated the media in recent times. The‘‘treaty’’ attempts to define such persons in a tenpage Appendix B, but admits that much work needs to be done and cites the problem of the cultural differences between the two countries. For instance, in New Zealand misconduct by banks is regarded as a serious crime, while in Australia such activity, revealed by a royal commission as widespread, has not yet led to a prison sentence. Similarly, a New Zealand motorcyclist in Australia almost certainly ends up in a detention centre while an Australian motorcyclist in New Zealand is unlikely to get more than a speeding ticket.
The ‘‘treaty’’, in efforts to eradicate the damage done by ingrained prejudices held by citizens on both sides on the Tasman, spells out a series of ‘‘truths’’ which are rather well expressed:
‘‘We hold these truths to be selfevident: that New Zealanders do not indulge promiscuously in unnatural practices with sheep; that Australians are not by definition descendants of the criminal scum of the British Isles; that New Zealanders are not hard to understand when ordering a feed of fish and chips; that Australian English does not sound like fingernails on a blackboard.’’ And so on it goes.
One section of the ‘‘treaty’’ runs to three pages (with 7 appendices) in an attempt to address the vexed question of sport. While admitting that New Zealand introduced rugby league to Australia, the document insists that great ‘‘Australian’’ sportsmen like legendary cricketer Clarrie Grimmett, who was born in Dunedin, should never be described as ‘‘New Zealanders’’. The section on rugby union has substantial input from the New Zealand bureaucrats, but the only Australian comment is, ‘‘Hell, mate, it’s only a game!’’
War presents a minefield. It appears that much time was wasted having to explain to the Australian delegates that
‘‘Anzac’’ was not a Turkish word given as a name to the place where troops landed in 1915, but is, in fact, an acronym in which ‘‘NZ’’ stands for New Zealand. (The word ‘‘acronym’’ had to be explained to one of the Australians, who thought it referred to a type of headache remedy.)
In the section on race, the Australians initially seemed to believe the topic under discussion was the Melbourne Cup, but eventually the focus turned to the subject of indigenous peoples, and the last sentence suggests that blows were struck before the matter was left for ‘‘later consideration’’.
Merely cosmetic matters are mentioned in passing with the understanding that they can be easily resolved. For instance, ‘‘You change yours, and we’ll change ours,’’ summarised the flag issue.
There was general agreement that things are not really that bad. One New Zealander is believed to have volunteered the information that his daughter had actually married an Australian and so far she seems to be OK.
‘‘Towards a TransTasman Treaty’’ will be available for wide discussion, and final submissions should be returned by April 1, 2019.