I came across this information again last night, it was written in 2004.
http://www.zshop.net.au/240tech.htm
Emphasis in bold is me...
So a few things that caught my eye in there.
1. I agree the workshop manual is probably a much more accurate way to look at productions variations and dates of manufacture. I've seen these workshop manuals on Yahoo! Auctions but they are very expensive in some cases $700 +
2. I have heard the rumours of diverted ships before and this may explain why we got so many early chassis number cars in Australia of the HS30 prefix.
3. The 2 orders for cars in the UK could well have been the cars that Alan described earlier.
HS30 00034 (registered 'UAR 609J') - UK motoring press - Race Car (still in UK)
HS30 00035 (registered 'MBP 72J') - UK motoring press - Restored (still in UK)
4. I've read somewhere else information that suggests the earliest 240z's in the country were used by dealers as promotional vehicles and may not have been available immediately to the public. This is something I find very interesting about the early 240z's in this country, were they dealer demo cars only and therefore not always sold direct to public. The fact that HS30 00012 was a Papua New Guinea car seems to suggest it could have been a dealer demo car over there. As we know HS30 0004 was a journalist test mule...
5. The compliance plate saga is an interesting 1, since I know that HS30 00150 had 1 fitted and was probably first registered in Victoria as mentioned, although other early 240z's didn't always have this fitted. The date on the compliance plate is likely to be when the car arrived in the country and not month of manufacture. The month of manufacture on my compliance plate suggests late 1970, but that is probably when the car arrived, it's more likely it was produced in early 70 along with a bunch of other HS30 prefixed cars.
This is all how I interpret the information and what we see looking back now, I still wouldn't say any of the above is the absolute truth.