The Hasting Standard Published Daily FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1897. IS ISOLATION GOOD POLICY?

Hastings Standard, Issue 328, 21 May 1897, Page 2

The Hasting Standard Published Daily

FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1897. IS ISOLATION GOOD POLICY?

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

New Zealand has maintained a benevolent attitude towards Australian Federation. Our statesmen, if such they may be called, say in effect that distance precludes us from joining in. There is no doubt a great deal to be said on this score, and there is also much in the argument that New Zealand being the only colony with a native population of any magnitude, federation may interfere with its native policy. At any rate our politicians do not see the road clear for New Zealand to become a member of the proposed Federal Empire. The policy of this country has ever been one of isolation, and the temper of our legislation has been to run a ring fence round the colony and keep New Zealand for the handful of atoms that go to make up its much-governed population. Is isolation good policy ? An academic discussion of the question or a sentimental review of the subject will be useless ; in our work-a-day world the measure is £ s. d., and it is by that gross measure we must judge of the value or otherwise of isolation. We can only estimate this just now, and that only in an incomplete manner. It is in the commercial aspect of the question that we shall find our isolation a bitterness. Federated Australia while enjoying interstate freetrade can, and no doubt will, impose protective duties against outsiders, discriminating perhaps in favor of Great Britain. The customs tariff of the federated colonies will be uniform, so that this colony, being outside the Union, will be subject to the barrier. We shall be to all intents and purposes a foreign state so far as the other colonies of the Union are concerned. Now it must be confessed that the intercolonial trade is of some importance to New Zealand, and it stands to reason that if the Australian ports were free the volume of our intercolonial trade would be very considerable. This is admitted by our politicians, for more than one effort has been made to engage in reciprocal trade relations with one and the other of the sister colonies. We felt the pinch very severely indeed when New South Wales, under the guidance of Sir George Dibbs, imposed duties of a restrictive character* upon produce. Our trade fell away, but it has since assumed respectable proportions with our altered fiscal relations with the mother colony. It cannot be doubted that New Zealand is by far the most prolific of all the colonies. We enjoy adTantages

which the others dare not hope for, and much of what we produce is in absolute demand by our neighbors. If we formed part of the confederation our produce would have the right of entree in all the states of the Federation without restriction or limitation, and under such conditions is it an exaggeration to say that our intercolonial trade in produce would treble itself ? And what is the class of produce that would benefit under such circumstances? Not the wool and mutton of the large land owners and squatters, but the wheat, maize, oats, barley, potatoes, butter and cheese of the small farmers. In these products we can undersell all' the other colonies, and our trade would be an expanding one. We should find for our struggling settlers a neat and steady market for the bulk of their produce, and this will inevitably tend to increase their number. The trouble with our small settlers is that they can find no outlet for their produce, or if the outlet is available the prices are ruinous. We incline to the belief that the question of federation when it becomes to be understood by our settlers will necessitate our politicians giving the subject more careful attention than appears to have been bestowed upon it, and on the basis of f.s.d. it would seem to be not to our disadvantage to join hands with our neighbors. There is another question involved in federation which though not of pressing importance just now will very soon become so. It is the question of defence. For many long years we have enjoyed perfect immmunity from invasion or the semblance of invasion, but that security of peace has vanished with the close of the war with China and Japan. There has grown up within the last few years a powerful nation within easy striking distance of our shore. It is not Russia, nor France, nor Germany that we have to fear, but Japan. A great Asiatic power with naval and military strength on a scale equal to almost any of the European nation has suddenly arisen in the Pacific. The development of Japan is marvellous, and her ambitions may be equally so, and we may realise this before long. Before the war with China the Japanese army had a peace strength of 70,000 and a war footing of 268,000; but flushed with victory and revelling in ambitions Japan is now giving effect to a scheme which the strength of her army on a peace footing to consist of 145,000 men, and when mobilised for war this Asiatic power will be able to place in the field 520,000 soldiers, efficiently armed and equipped and in all respects equal to the European powers. The Japanese Navy is being reorganised and improved, and in 1906, that is in nine years, Japan will possess a fleet of 65 battle ships and cruisers and 115 torpedo boats. If this is not a menace to the perfect peace of Australasia nothing can be. It is a position that we must face, and the question that will have to be considered is whether this colony can afford to stand out of the federation and rely upon herself and her own resources in the matter of defence. Federation with Australia may not be so bad after all for New Zealand, and we feel convinced that with the changes which have occurred within recent years the, subject is entitled to further consideration. It is not unlikely that the matter will come up for discussion in the next session of Parliament.