National Party Division Wants More Migrants

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30760, 26 May 1965, Page 18

National Party Division Wants More Migrants

Although told by the Minister of Laobur (Mr Shand) that increased immigration would be inflationary, the Canter-bury-Westland divisional committee of the National Party last evening urged the Government to review immediately its immigration policy with a view to increasing greatly the number of immigrants brought into New Zealand.

Far from easing the over-full employment situation, as most people believed, increased immigration would be an inflationary factor, said Mr Shand at the annual meeting of the divisional committee.

“In fact,” he said,

“if immigration was stopped for a fewmonths, the labour situation would improve.

Mr Shand said that the rate of New Zealand’s population growth was the highest in the world when immigration was ineluded.

“Whether we could sustain a higher rate I don’t know,” he said.

Australia was faying to increase its immigration to 125,000 a year, but New Zealand, with only one quarter the population, brought in 35,000 immigrants last year, which was already a greater rate of immigration than the Australians were still only trying to achieve. N.Z. Restrictions

He said that New Zealand restricted immigration from countries where Australia was assisting immigrants. New

Zealand assisted only skilled immigrants, and restricted immigration from countries that might do harm to New Zealand’s very favourable race relationship. The movers of the remit wanted New Zealand to take 10 per cent of immigrants from northern Italy, but Italy would not allow New Zealand to select from only one part of the country, and like other European countries, it would not allow New Zealand to select only skilled workers. Speaking in round figures, Mr Shand said that 20,000 immigrants a year would produce 10,000 workers, and tiiey would require 7000 homes — about one-third of all houses built in New Zealand. So they would create a big drain on New Zealand’s labour resources as well as contributing to them. The 7000 houses would cost £2Bm a year, said Mr Shand. The national income was about £l6oom, and there was a work force of Im, so the average worker’s income was £l6OO a year.

Of that, each immigrant worker would save about £4OO, so it would take seven years of immigrants’ savings to pay for their houses.

“And you talk about solving our employment problem,” said Mr Shand. He said it cost £2250 to set up the average immigrant, making £46m of capital ex-

penditure for 20,000 immigrants.

“The average working immigrant will work for 12 years before he has paid out of his savings for his capital expenditure,” said Mr Shand, “so he is an inflationary influence, and not a solution to the labour problem.” Mr Shand said he agreed, however, that New Zealand must have a high level of immigration. A country as lightly populated as New Zealand—an outpost of Europeans in Asia—could not afford to keep its population low.

The movers of the remit said the excessive competition for labour would be eased by an increased flow of immigration. That in turn would reduce the pressure on management in having continually to give higher wages. Wage Cuts Opposed

Mr H. J. Walker, M.P., protested against that proposal. He said he recognised that wages were a big factor in production, but costs should be cut, not by cutting wages down, but by more efficient management and methods. “I want to see it made clear that we are in favour of a good day’s pay for a good day’s work,” he said. Mr H. E. Radley said that New Zealand’s great problem was the shortage of labourers, and hnmigration should not be limited to the assistance of skilled workers.