The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1910. AUSTRALIA TO BRITISH EYES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 913, 5 September 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1910. AUSTRALIA TO BRITISH EYES.

Although Me. Postee Feasee's new book,; Australia: A Nation in the contains nothing about New Zealand beyond a passing allu-: sion to bur public debt and our, borrowing, habits, yet there is much in it that; it would be profitable 'for every New Zealander to read , and think about., Mn. Feasee has already come in for some furious abuse at the hands of a section of Austra : lians. His book, however, is not ohe : which 'should offend any good-Aus-tralian in whom patriotism has not killed common'sehse and a willingness to consider honest criticism with an open mind. So far as the country itself is' concerned, Mr. Frasee is. _ surprisingly, enthusiastic, 'and writes with.confidence and cordiality of the great ■ and splendid future that is deducible from the fine results that have already been achieved by the courage and energy of the earlier settlers. There is not one of the six States, which he does not describe in language that is likely to persuade his British readers,that the great southern continent is one of. the favoured places of the earth. It was: natural that the author of Canada' As. It Ts should ■make a great many comparisons between the L>t>minion and the Commonwealth; ; and it is pleasant to. know that Me. Frasee is emphatically of the opinion'that, given good management, Australia is by far the better country of the ,two, and,.of course, infinitely the pleasanter place to live in; But the people" and the politics struck' Mr. Frasee as', not/being worthy of x the country—the people,, for their want of a true perspective/ and the politics, because they hamSer the development of the continent! [r. : Feasee has been told,- of course, that,what he. says on these points is air wrong, but some bf.it is surprisingly applicable to New Zealand. Here is a description of a young Australian which many will regard as a not very greatly exaggerated, picture of a certain type of ybung New Zealander: ; ,"

It is the privilege of ignorant people to be dogmatic. The dogmatic cocksureness to overweening conceit of the, average young Australian is something "to 'make one alternately sorrow and laugh.. He has not been to,other countries; his knowledge of geography .is hazy: to ludicrbusness; he decides, without-any knowledge, at all, .that other countries are "rotten places."'. He does not want to know about other lands. Australia is the finest place on earth, and that fs sufficient for him. There aro plenty of exceptions lu this, but what I say has been corroborated! in my hearing by, many travelled and cultured . Australians themselves. .

l'his is the only occasion upon which Mr. Foster Fraser is really bitter, and no doubtmany people Willconsider this judgment an offence thatall the enthusiasm and good' nature in the rest of the book cannot purge. In support of his point Mr. .Fraser quotes a conversation the actuality of which must be apparent to many New: Zealanders, since the frame of mind of Mr. Fraser's Melbourne friend is a not uncommon frame of mind to be found in this country: >"What do you', think of Melbourne?" was an inquiry addressed to me whilst I was in that city; 1 said I liked it,"'- and gave several reasons why. "I suppose you've never seen any better city in all your travels?" ' Oh, well, in fairness to other places I could not say that. "What place?". Oh, London!-at a shot. "What is there better in London than in Melbourne?" .Another shot—oh, Westminster Abbe,). I , "Well, I'm sure Westminster Abbey does not compare with Melbourne Cathedral." I was led to ask:' "But have you seen Westminster Abbey?" "No,"'came'the answer quickly, "and I don't want to." And then, after a pause, tho spoken thought: "I don't think you like Melbourne." ; ' Like all sensible .men, Mr. Fraser thinks that it is natural and proper' for a man to think well of his country, and to be content with it. "It would be silly to criticise a people because they are contented. Content, however,.is not sufficient, especially when there-is a mighty continent lying asleep and needing to be awakened into agricultural well-doing." The things that puzzled this observant visitor have their counterparts in New Zealand. He wondered over land over again why the Federal laws are directed towards the restriction of immigration, while the need for -immigration is everywhere apparent, and indeed proclaimed in every reference to the "yellow peril," which Mr. Fraser seems to believe is a real one. Ho wonders why, when only- 6i per cent of the national territory . is alienated, there is devoted so much energy to. the breaking-up of the private holdings while little or none at all is given to the development the untouched 93A per cent—just as we in this country wonder why the Government harasses the free landholder while keeping the Native areas.out of the full current of set-i tlement. He wonders, too, why the present-day young Australian, who wants to go on the land, does not push into the interior, where land can be,obtained for nextto nothing, and battle with troubles in emulation of the pioneers. And_ while the Australians arc neglecting their duty in these respects, they are incessantly talking of the country's "potentialities,", as Mr. T. Mackenzie talked in the House so eloquently one day last week. Mr. Fraser- does not attempt to explain this singular state of affairs; ho can only suggest that the present-day Australian is not as good a man as his father or grandfather. Whether this can bo truly said either of tho

young Australian or the young New Zealander is not an easy question to answer. Perhaps it would be more near the mark to say that the weaknesses of the Australasian are the result, not of a deteriorated character, but of wrong ideas. We'have not to go any further than to our House of Representatives to realise the truth of this summary of the origin of these wrong ideas: "The past is dead—what have we got to do with it?"> is the attitude of the average Australian towards history. He has yet to be taught that even a young nation like Australia has much to learn from the life-history of other nations. Having -but a superficial acquaintance with ancient history, and knowing virtually nothing of modern history, and having the most ludicrous ideas about the geography of other lands and their possibilities, the Australian does not do himself justice. For, naturally a fair-minded man, ho misses the very things that would. enable him to secure a judicious and balanced idea' about ..the place Australia happens to hold in the congress of nations at the present time. There are four' other points dealt with in this interesting volume which are worth noting, namely, the \extraordinary: State jealousies, the vindictiveness of industrial relations, the evils of "political" railway construction,' and the violent hatred of the private enterprise which, if encouraged,: would 1 develop the continent as-, it cannot be de-. veloped by State action. We are well aware that many people will say that Mr. .Feasee is right only when he is applauding, but that is manifestly an unreasonable view to take of a critic who has obviously been governed by friendliness and honesty. He sunis up his position by saying that while he has no sympathy with what has been called the "stinking fish: party," he has just as little with "the Australian who makes the .foundation of his "belief the statement that all must be well in ' Australia, and that anybody who differs from him, who thinks things .miglit.be improved, is necessarily a contemptible creature deserving to be booed put of the land."