The Press TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1944. Immigration

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24270, 30 May 1944, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1944. Immigration

Mr K. B. Cumberland’s recent address to the Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Society of Accountants, reported yesterday, has its connexion with the report, a few days earlier, of Lord Cranborne’s statement on the British Government’s plans for Empire migration. Adding some significant details to previous reports of the Prime Ministers’ conclusions on this subject at the recent conference, Lord Cranborne said it had been “ definitely *• agreed ” that the Dominion governments would consider it “ directly “ after the return of their Prime “ Ministers ” and would then communicate with the British Government upon “ further steps to be “ taken.” There is, here, evidence of. greater urgency than had appeared in earlier reports. More than that, Lord Cranborne said that his Government had made it “ abun- “ dantly clear ” that, Britain’s need for population notwithstanding, it felt on “ broad Imperial lines ” bound to encourage and assist inter-imperial migration, if the Dominions wanted it and if they v/ere prepared to “ make their own “ contribution.” It is perhaps a little hasty to infer that the urgency was the British Government’s. If it was, it was generously and wisely introduced. But what is beyond guesswork is the fact that the British Government has rejected an excuse it might have pleaded against furthering immigration—an excuse which Mr Fraser, for example, offered it. One difficulty we face [Mr Fraser said, as reported on May 91 is that the kind of men we may need most_ urgently are the kind you in Britain may be most reluctant to lose. You have tremendous rebuilding to do in this country. You will heed, all your building trade employees arid tens of thousands of other skilled men. As far as other types of workers are concerned, there is a limit to agricultural development. ... But the excuse rejected by. the British Government is at the same time withdrawn from Mr ’Fraser and his colleagues. TJhey cannot say, “ It’s useless to set our house in order and issue invitations. “ Nobody we want will be allowed “ and helped to come.” They have been told that permission and help will be given, as they are needed and ■ earned. According to Lord Cranborne, the New Zealand Government will begin to work on the problem as soon as Mr Fraser returns. This is so much better than Mr Fraser’s “ after that.” But it is still necessary to say that the problem must be attacked as it deserves —with the right weapons, determinedly, and without hampering preconceptions. It is necessary to say this for three clear _ reasons. First, when the Acting-Prime Minister, early this month, announced and explained the Organisation for National Development, he showed that one of its committees, under the chairmanship of the Hon. P. C. Webb, will deal with Labour and Immigration. It seems, dangerously improbable that a committee doubly charged as this one is, and following the procedure outlined by Mr Sullivan, will be able to cope with the problem and produce a policy. When the Cabinet comes to consider the matter, it should, be able to shape a better instrument for the purpose. Second, Cabinet will not usefully consider the matter and. no instrument will usefully work upon it, unless the preconception is first abandoned, that a.“proper scheme” of immigration will have to wait until the Dominion’s housing needs are satisfied and until the last tasks of “ rehabilitation ” are done. It is essential that investigation should extend to the chances of planning reconstruction and immigration in useful interrelation'. Third, the Cabinet will make a false start if it accepts the Prime Minister’s view that New Zealand has scope for migrants only or mainly in the field of manufacturing industry. This view is not merely incomplete; it is reactionary; it disregards those new and wide prospects for New Zealand agriculture—and at the same time for processing Industries allied with it—to which Mr Cumberland has drawn attention. No investigation can be anything but self-stultifying if it precludes them. Though it is not strictly relevant to Lord Cran-' borne’s statement, it is to be added that investigation should also include the possibilities of selective immigration from non-European sources. New Zealand needs a constructive immigration policy. It cannot be improvised. But the search for it will fail if it is not competently directed, comprehensive, unprejudiced, and early.