AN INJURIOUS NAME.

Evening Star, Issue 19805, 2 March 1928, Page 6

AN INJURIOUS NAME.

Whkn tlie Association of New Zealand Chambers of Commerce set itself half a dozen years ago to wage a campaign ■*gainst the use of the words “ Australasia ” and “ Australasian,” it appeared to be essaying very much of an uphill task. Few things are more difficult to alter than language, or the usages of language, as councils that have been established for the preservation of pure English are likely to find out. The term “Australasia,” with its associated adjective, was strongly established in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and business directories, if it was less frequent in atlases. It is a “ portmanteau word,” and such words have their value for laziness. It was much for the association to imagine that it could get rid of “ Australasia.” But, assisted by tho Government, the High Commissioner’s Office in London, and other agencies, it lias achieved already a remarkable degree of success. The great objection to tho name is that it is a misleading one, the misconception it encourages being fraught with serious business disadvantages for New Zealand, for tho unthinking reader at a distance, it merges the identity of this country in the identity of a larger one which is twelve hundred miles away, and, with only the friendliest feelings towards Australians, New Zealand is proud of its own identity. There are commercial reasons for preserving it in the world’s consideration. It is important that our products should he known as our own. Numerous instances could be quoted of Australian houses acquiring “Australasian” agencies, resulting in New Zealand traders being forced to bear additional landed costs; indeed, Australia lias monopolised some lines and placed New Zealand at its mercy. Goods which should come direct here often have to bo purchased through Australia, which means double handling. There is a loss in both direct tonnage and exchange. Instead of settlements being made through New Zealand hanks direct with Loudon they have to pass through Australian agents, thus helping to swell the volume of Australia’s trade and credit and diminishing our own. Australian agents take a profit which should be available for the New Zealand people, and which, if taken by the New Zealand trader, would lie taxable, thus assisting this country’s revenue. From the business viewpoint “ Australasia has reason to he reckoned by New Zealanders as a vile word, and etymologically it is an absurd one. Why should this country be obscured by a name which means “Southern Asia”? A school child’s atlas reveals the fallacy of the description. Thanks to the campaign which has been waged against the° word from this dominion, its use is much less common now than it used to he. A great concession was made when a well-known journal, the ‘ British Australasian,’ consented to change its name to the ‘ British Australian and New Zealander.’ A letter was received less than a fortnight ago from the Western Union Telegraph Company, New York, stating that, at the association’s request, it had issued instructions to discontinue the use of the 'misleading words. Another American firm, whose attempt to preserve a dual-ity-hut a wrong duality—had been shown by tho use of the term “ Aus-tral-Asia,” agreed readily to discard it for “Australia and New Zealand.” Tho records of the association, doubtless. could show many like concessions to its propaganda. Of course there are lapses, requiring special reminders. But New Zealand is getting its own name much more treqnently than it did. We can leave unamended the poets’ use of names which have pleased them no doubt by their sonorousness — “ tho iris of the Australasian spray.” There is no necessity for distinguishing our variety of spray Irom tho Australians’. But it will lie all to New Zealand’s advantage if the words that have been objected to can lie made to become as much purely historical names as Staten Land and Van Diemen’s Land.