WRONG IMPRESSION

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1932, Page 2

WRONG IMPRESSION

NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA.

IGNORANCE OF GEOGRAPHY

LONDON, June 18. “Uliique” writes to the “Daily Telegraph,” from Harrow: Sir Thomas Wilford, the High Commissioner for New Zealand, lias.a grievance, it seems, that English people are too casual about geography. Can the idea, undoubtedly held hv some, that New Zealand is contiguous to Australia, he due to the fact that following its rediscovery and exploration hv Captain Cook in 1769, it was for two generations loosely associated with the original New South Wales For a few months it was actually a dependency of that State, as it then existed, before it was constituted an independent colony in 1841. Separated from the shores of Australia by over 1600 miles of sea, it is no wonder it declined to join the Commonwealth, and for much the same reason that Newfoundland refrained from joining the Dominion of Canada.

This letter is followed by one signed, “A.S.C.”, who says; “Übiquc” may agree with me that the real cause of the .confusion is the use of the term “Australasia.” Under this New Zealand loses its identity, and strong exception is taken to it, especially by business meil in the Dominion. Thel'e is not much in edminoh between the two countries. In fact, the mentality of the New Zealander is different from that of the Australian, British companies should discontinue placing their New Zealand agencies under Australia. The practice is strongly resented by the Dominion people, and it causes much business to be driven to foreign countries, especially those of Ame'ri-t mils, who realise that they must deal direct with the New Zealanders, and not through Australia, a land of 1200 miles distant, or about as far as Rome is from London.