THE CHATHAM ISLANDS—II IS MORE EXPENDITURE ON THE ISLANDS REALLY WISE?

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32406, 19 September 1970, Page 16

THE CHATHAM ISLANDS—II IS MORE EXPENDITURE ON THE ISLANDS REALLY WISE?

(By

N. L. MACBETH)

In the three years to 1969 the Government spent, on average, $511,000 a year on the Chatham Islands, apart from social security benefits, pensions, and the National Roads Board allocations. [Expenditure by the board in 1968 was $32,000.] When he gave this information in a letter to the Chatham Islands County Council last December, the Minister ofdnternal Affairs (Mr Seath) said that, on the basis of the Chatham Islands population of 500 at' April 1, 1969, “this would equal the Government spending $172 million on the population of Christchurch.”

This massive expenditure by the mainland taxpayers on the Chatham Islands, permanently inhabited by fewer than 200 families, was still not sufficient to provide electricity, high-pressure water, sealed roads, or many of the other amenities taken for granted virtually everywhere on the mainland.

The crayfish bonanza was the main source of income for the islanders in the last three years; the value of the annual catch averaged S3J million. Besides this figure, the total expenditure of the meat company $86,000 in 1969-70—looks small indeed.

Was the expenditure justified? Is the increased expenditure on roads, harbour works, and other improvements envisaged over the next few years likely to pay off—either by way of a return on the mainland capital invested or in an improvement in the welfare of the islanders? The same questions have been asked before, but never authoritatively answered. Surveys and investigations in the Chatham Islands have been made from time to time, but always within a restricted frame of reference. None of the published surveys ever set out to answer the fundamental question: are the islands capable of becoming a viable economic unit? The North Canterbury executive of Federated Farmers has, in the last year, been pressing for an economic survey of the islands. Dilatory official replies have referred to specific investigations or have denied the need for “andther” economic survey.

Surely a Government which can spend $511,000 a year on the Chathams can find a tenth or a fifth of that sum to discover whether it is spending wisely, or, if not, how the money could be better spent? The terms of reference for such an inquiry might be: 1. Are the islands capable of becoming economically self-sufficient? 2. If the answer to 1 is “Yes,” what further development expenditure is required? 3. If the answer to 1 is “No,” what policy should the Government adopt towards the islands, its inhabitants, and those who have invested money in the islands? Putting myself in the position of devil’s advocate before a commission of inquiry into the Chatham Islands, I suggest that the islands are unlikely to become a viable unit, and that the Government's best course is to offer resettlement to all the inhabitants on the mainland and compensate the property owners. The farming potential of the islands is scarcely relevant when the internal and external transport costs are taken into account. An investment of millions of dollars in a deepwater port, harbour facilities, stores, roads, and vehicles would dwarf the returns from even a mil- ; lion sheep. • The crayfish industry will continue to earn overseas funds for New Zealand if the islands’ processing plants are abandoned; indeed, there is a suspicion that the industry would have been more profitable had none of these plants been established. Three years ago the Minister of Marine (Mr Scott) refused permission for Chatham Island crayfish to be processed at sea by factory ships. “Requests from the industry to use these vessels have been considered," said Mr Scott, “and I have decided their use will not be in the best long-term interests of the Chatham Islands crayfish industry.” Disappointment and frustration among the islands’ residents will be ended only when the Government announces its intentions to withdraw all but emergency services from the islands, to resettle the inhabitants on the mainland, and to compensate the islands’ residents, landowners and investors. Half a million dollars a year will buy a lot of mainland houses and farms, schooling and training courses. The resettlement programme for the Tokelau Islands is a notable precedent in this field. In 1966 the New Zealand Cabinet accepted the proposition that the islands’ economy could no longer support its growing population—then about 1900 —and launched a resettlement programme. Up to March 31 this year 300 islanders had been resettled | —mostly as family groups—;

in New Zealand. A further 100 islanders were expected to be resettled this year. The integration of Chatham Islands residents, most of whom have some experience of life on the New Zealand mainland, would pose fewer social and economic problems than are involved in bringing Tokelau Islanders from their tropical atolls to New Zealand. The main difficulty would be one of mental adjustment; this would have to begin with acknowledgement that the Cabinet and its departmental advisers had for years misled themselves and the Chatham Islanders about the islands’ viability. That, briefly, is the argument which should be rebutted before consideration is

given to further development of the Chatham Islands. It should be examined by a competent body, removed from the parochial politicking which has for so long clouded the making of political and official decisions about the Chathams. The task might be given to the Stanford Research Institute, or some other reputable overseas organisation. An authoritative, impartial report would, for the first time, give Parliament a factual assessment of the islands. Until such a report is available, all public discussion on the Chatham Islands, including Parliamentary debates, is likely to be ill informed. (Concluded)