The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1965. Immigration

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30899, 4 November 1965, Page 16

The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1965. Immigration

The employers’ campaign for increased immigration has mounted steadily since the opening shots were fired in March. The final barrage yesterday was an impressive deputation which waited on the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand). The irony of the situation is that economic conditions today are even less propitious for an increase in immigration than they were earlier in the year—employers’ protestations notwithstanding. The individual employer, acutely aware of his own labour problems, sees immigration as the only way to fill the vacant places in his assembly line, building gang, or work benches. But if 7400 migrants with their families arrived tomorrow to fill the 7400 vacancies in industry, would the labour shortage disappear? Or would these new residents create 7400 new vacancies, more or less, because of the increased demand for goods and services? The employment created by each new migrant may be greater or less than his own contribution to the economy—less if he is single, highly paid, and frugal; less, certainly if considered over 10 years rather than one. In the short run the net effect of immigration is surely inflationary.

All this has been said before, though not often enough or forcefully enough, apparently, to convince employers that immigration by itself is no answer to the problem of labour shortages. Some of the arguments raised by yesterday’s deputation, however, deserve special attention. The deputation sought an increase of 4000 to 8000 Government-assisted immigrants a year. The employers’ hopes of an increase of 4000 immigrants a year from this source might be disappointed. In the first place an increase in the number of assisted immigrants might result in a decrease in the number of immigrants paying their own fares. In the second place, immigrants paying their own way are more likely to remain in New Zealand than those whose passage is subsidised. As the deputation rightly pointed out, net immigration, not gross immigration, is the significant figure. In the year < ended March, 1965, immigrants intending permanent residence totalled 35,400; the New Zealand residents (including immigrants of more than 12 months’ residence) departing permanently totalled 18,100: the difference of 17,300 represents “ net immigration ”. This figure has varied between 6600 (in 1960-61) and 22,700 (in 1952-53) in the last 15 years. Many factors other than Government assistance affect migration; Government assistance may sometimes be one of the less important. In their latest submissions, the employers make no attempt to compare New Zealand’s net immigration with that of other countries; earlier arguments along these lines had been turned against them. For instance, Australia’s gross immigration, in absolute terms, exceeds New Zealand’s, but that country’s net immigration, in relation to population, is lower than New Zealand’s.

The employers persist, however, in arguing that New Zealand should emulate the more ambitious assisted immigration efforts of other countries, particularly Australia’s. “ The flotf of migrants from “ Britain ”, says an Australian journal quoted by the deputation, “ shows no sign of decreasing, and for this M we should be grateful ”. For this, New Zealand also should be grateful: it will help to maintain transTasman migration, which has resulted in net immigration to New Zealand in all but two of the last 15 years. If the employers hoped to enlist Mr Shand’s sympathy for their cause by quoting Government departments’ labour shortages, they deserved a dusty answer. The shortage of tradesmen in the Government’s employ is more likely to have been caused by competition from private employers than by any other factor.

But to pick holes in the employers’ submissions without acknowledging the validity of much of their argument would be unfair. It is true that immigration is desirable for a developing country such as New Zealand, and that both political parties have supported the principle of increased immigration: that changes in immigration policy may not become effective until a year or more has elapsed; and that New Zealand’s recruitment of immigrants could be spread more effectively, both within Britain and in other countries. With all this we have no quarrel; but we cannot agree that an increase in assisted immigration will ease the present labour shortage, nor that this is an opportune time to expand this assistance. Indeed, the expansion suggested by the employers would positively harm the economy by aggravating inflation and by increasing the balance-of-payments deficit. These are sufficient reasons for the Government to defer any expansion of its immigration programme.