IMMIGRATION SUPPORTED

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26031, 7 February 1950, Page 4

IMMIGRATION SUPPORTED

CHRISTCHURCH R.S.A. RESOLUTION

EXECUTIVE’S DISCUSSION “It is the opinion of this executive that the prosperous future of New Zealand ,is inextricably interwoven with a vigorous immigration policy to increase the Dominion’s 'population.” This motion was carried unanimously at a meeting last evening of the executive of the Christchurch Returned Services’ Association. The meeting was discussing a circular from the association’s headquarters requesting views on immigration. Social security or any other-'secur-ity must go by the board if there was no national security, said Mr G. D. Hattavzay, moving the motion. His seconder, Mr J. A. Bretherton, quoted figures in support of an immigration scheme.* There would be no natural increase in New Zealand’s, population unless every family averaged 3.7 children, he said. The population of Japan increased in a year by as much as the total population of New Zealand. There was a good deal of opposition in many quarters to any immigration scheme for New Zealand, but it had to be remembered that each immigrant brought his own needs and many brought special qualifications, said Mr Bretherton. While supporting the motion, Mr G. A. Franks asked whether it went far enough. He claimed that New Zealand should support a population of 5,000,000 at least. “Where are the immigrants' to come from?” he asked, emphasising that care should be taken in selecting them. “It is not a political matter, but I personally think we will get more immigrants in the future than we have got in the past.” “I noticed in the paper the other day that New Zealand has been asked to take another thousand displaced persons. I think it is the view of this executive that if possible immigrants should be of the same stock as ourselves—from the Old Country,” said the president (Mr H. E. Batchelor). “We should not be taking more displaced persons until every avenue m Great Britain has been explored.” Mr R. A. Nightingale asked was the association being practical in its advocacy of immigration at the present time. A large percentage of recent immigrants had returned home because there were inadequate facilities ready for them in New Zealand, he said. There could be only one reason for opposing the motion, said Mr E. B. Atkinson: was Australia’s need of immigrants greater than New Zealand s? If this was the case New Zealand should wait until Australia’s requirements were met before seeking immigrants. His amendment to this effect lapsed for want of a seconder and the motion was then put.

WAIRARAPA FARMERS’ VIEWS CRITICISM OF MR O’SHEA (New Zealand Press Association) MASTERTON, February 6. Contending that Mr A. P. O’Shea, general secretary of Federated Farmers, had put a liberal interpretation on the immigration policy of the federation in references he made some time ago to peasant farming, Mr B. Brasell (Carterton) said at a meeting of the Wairarapa executive of the federation to-day that only such freak opinions “hit the headlines.” Mr O’Shea attended to-day’s meeting. A Carterton remit urging* a vigorous programme of planned immigration of suitable settlers from Britain at first and or from other suitable European countries as the policy of the federation was carried. The “no peasant” attitude of Mr O’Shea had hit the headlines, but it was damaging to the organisation, said Mr Brasell. Planned immigration had no such risk, for at least centuries’ Discussing immigration without paying attention to the need for building up the strength of the country for defence and to the political trend in Asia was worthless. Mr Brasell advocated a policy of getting immigrants with the same ideas as New Zealanders. That policy should be pursued steadily ana not rushed. Mr O’Shea said that for the privilege of having tyres made at the Hutt, New Zealand motorists paid an extra £3 4s a tyre. Immigrants were not likely to work a 60-hour week when they saw what was going on in the cities. Unless New Zealand exported it would not be able to buy guns and tanks, etc., for its defence and would have to rely on bows and arrows. New Zealand did not have the resources for a big population. Every time land was subdivided for soldier settlement it now cost thousands. The whole thing was a question of economics.