POPULATION IN N.Z. PLEA FOR A VIGOROUS IMMIGRATION POLICY

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28822, 17 February 1959, Page 12

POPULATION IN N.Z. PLEA FOR A VIGOROUS IMMIGRATION POLICY

tSpeciatlv written for "Ths Press" bv

JOHN H. EVANS.]

According to Lord -Boyd-Orr, the. population of the world in 1956 was about 2.500 million, wifi) an annual increase of a little over 35 million. In "The Family in Contemporary Society," written by a group convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it' is Stated that "the rate of populaion growth in the world has never been so rapid at the present time, and it is estimated that in one generation the world population might increase by 45 per qent.” The population of New Zealand, which was nearly two million in 1951, and 2,174,062 in 1956, is now about two and a quarter million. In the 24 years from 1921 to 1945 the percentage increase was rather less than 36. If there were no immigration or emigration, changes in population would depend on the difference between the number of births and deaths in anj* given period. This is known as the natural increase or decrease. In New Zealand there has always been a natural increase, which, in recent years, has been rather more than 16 per 1000.

But the population of the country has been greatly affected by immigration, which has also produced a considerable increase in total numbers at the rate of over 10,000 a year. Permanent Immigrants 1950- .. .. .. 18.234 1931-3 .. .. 34.932 1933-3 .. .. 39,008 1053-1 .. 34.808 1954-3 . .. .. ; .. 19.453 ® ’:: :: :: S:S? Permanent W5O-1 1951- .. 7.300 17,822 1982- .. 6.271 33.734 1983- .. 7,048 17,048 ,1984-5 9.012 10,441 ■ W :: &S Forecast for 2000 AJ>. The increased numbers have mainly been in the younger age groups. Between 1954 and 1967, about 19 per cent, of tile Immigrants were under 15, 42 per cent under 25, and 71 per cent under 35. Consequently, a ' population now increasing at the rate of about 50,000 a year is likely to go on increasing even more rapidly as- its younger members marry and have children. It has been estimated that if the natural rate ,of increase continues to be 15 a thousand, and the net inflow of immigrants Is maintained at 10,000 a year, the future population of New Zealand will be:— 1900 2,358,000 1970 2,844.000 1980 3.409,000 . 1990 4,064,000 2poo .......... 4.8M.000 Between December, 1908. when the population was one million, and August, 1952, when it reached two million, the population doubled, in 40 years. Oh the above figures it will have more than doubled in 40 years. Can we be satisfied with this trend? Strictly from an economic point of view, the best population is that of which will produce the highest standard of living; and this depends not on the total numbers of people, but on the relative size of the labour force; and the perpetuation of that standard depends on the maintenance of that relative size. The efficiency of that force in turn depends on the natural resources available; including the fertility of the soil, the climate, and mineral wealth. These resources require capital to develop them, and the accumulation of this capital calls for a willingness to save'and invest.

Saving and Investment The natural resources of New Zealand are, of course, mainly agrarian, and therefore the optimum' population is smaller than that of a country' like Great Britain, which is of about the same size but has resources which favour industrialisation and a larger and ■ more concentrated population. The discovery of large mineral wealth here would make the optimum, larger; but, so far, saving and investment have been barely sufficient for bur present needs, and unless the rate of accumulation- is greatly increased there will not be enough for a rapidly increasing population even without the development of new natural resources on a large scale. On the other hand, the problem of finding additional labour is likely to become less acute, as the population is relatively young. At the same time it must be

remembered that economic standards -are not the only, or even the most important, consideration. There is also the question of what we call a way of life, not easily defined but easily understood. The way of life in England, for instance, was very different 250 years ago, and by turning, to large-scale industry, with its associated problems of the growth of big cities and the vast increase of industrial wealth, England has gained much and also lost much. The desirability of a similar trend in New Zealand is at least debatable. There is no doubt that largescale development of industry here would bring great changes, and not only in the size of the optimum population. Australia’s Example Nor can a country afford to neglect strategic considerations. New geographical isolai tion makes us particularly vulnerable to the hazards of war and the dislocations of intemation- . al trade in times of peace. Thus I we may well think it worth while I to achieve some measure of economic independence, even at the cost of some sacrifice in our stan- ’ dard of living. Such a sacrifice , would be inevitable, as we should be trying to do for ourselves • various things which other coun- ’ tries could do for us more cheaply. This kind of development wood require a great

increase in population, and the extra people would make the country much stronger in the face of the rapidly growing populations of our Asiatic neighbours!. Whatever the answers may be tn these difficult questions, few people will seriously dispute that New Zealand is at present underpopulated.. We should seriously ask ourselves how long we shad be allowed to continue thus in an overpopulated and hungry world To quote the report of one of the committees of the Lambeth Conference of 1958: "At present the increase of total world resources is keeping a little ahead of world population. There is insufficient evidence on which to conclude that it can continue to do so if the rate of population growth is maintained. It is known, however, 1 that since the potential for increasing resources lies at present in the wealthier regions where population is relatively stabilised, only a. willingness and ability to ’ share that potential with the under-developed and over-popu-lated regions can distribute resources adequately to meet the needs of the world of the future; and'of particular regions now.” Vulnerable Strategically It is clear that it is our duty as well as our interest not to acquiesce in a situation which will give us a population of undec three million in 1970, and under five million in 2000. Australia has looked ahead and has adopted an imaginative and courageous immigration policy, with results similar to those which occurred in the U.S. 100 years ago. Sir Douglas Copland has recently told us that between 25 and 30 per cent, of the Australian national income is being invested, that the ‘ population of the country will grow from 21 to 2} per cent a year and will at this rate double itself in less than 30 years, and that the age group 15-19 will increase by nearly 80 per cent by 1975 and the age group 30-24 by 60 p.er cent. ’ -. All thia amounts to saying that New' Zeeland has no population policy worthy of the name, or. that it is so feeble and unrealistic as to need drastic' amendment This is certainly not a plea for unrestricted immigration, for that might well be a cure more deadly . than the malady; but the country’s population must be increased at a greater rate than at present The birthrate is relatively high, but until a way la found of providing larger houses for larger families at a reasonable cost it is not likely to become much hlsjlwir although more generous taxation allowances in favour of the fatoitv man might make some difficraitat' Greater publicity for New 'Zealand in European countries Mid more vigorous immigration policF to bring in persons of European stock—particularly those of the professions and trades which we need—could lead to a great in- . crease in poulation, and productivity, from abroad. ' Th u^ os ! 01 J ual a ‘ be high in terms of effort and' money but not too high’’ for th* advantages which would come to New Zealand with the new Immigrants. Part of this cost would be a readiness to save and invest 1 to produce the various capital goods, including houses and schools (and the people to staff them), which a larger populatiog would make necessary, in we should have to forgo present for the sake future ; X?» wouW be part of the price of national greatness, r

BIRTHS Rate per 1000 1950 49,414 25.88 1951 49,889 26.52 1952 t - _ _ 51,928 26.01 1953 51,943 25.35 1954 54,131 25.84 1955 55,676 . 56,593 26.03 1956 25.93 1957 .. .. 58,941 DEATHS 26.20 Natural Rate per 1000 Increase 1000 1950 . 18,084 9.47*. 16.41 1951 . . 18.836 9.67 15.85 1952 . . 18,896 9.47 16.54 1953 . 18354 836 16.39 1954 . . 18376 9.01 16.85 1955 . . 19,225 8.99 17.04 1956 . 19.696 9.02 16.91 1957 . 20,862 934 16.86