COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL MIGRANTS: ARE THEY A NEED OR AN EMBARRASSMENT?

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33154, 19 February 1973, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL MIGRANTS: ARE THEY A NEED OR AN EMBARRASSMENT?

<By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, February 18.—How urgent is New Zealand's need for more migrants, and how can this need be met without disturbing the delicate balance of demand and supply ?

These questions are among those studied recently by groups working with the National Development Council, whose task it is to advise the Government on action to be taken. The theme for study has been “Economic Strategy and the Labour Force” —and the conclusions, particularly relating to the building industry, are very similar to those reached at a recent meeting of 14 major organisations presided over by the president of the New Zealand Timber Merchants’ Federation (Mr G. R. Rear).

I Summing up. the chairman ■of the National Development !Council group (Professor F. ;W. Holmes) said that though [the control of expenditure is lan element in the control of inflation, there is also need [for some form of stabilisation [of prices and incomes. On problems within the building[ [industry, the group agreed with the previous and unofficial meeting.

i “The majority view of the [group was that the present [problems of the building industry were caused by the large fluctuations in activity which it and the the sectors supplying building materials had to cope with,” Professor Holmes has reported. “This applied especially to housing where the numbers of units built were expected to rise from 22,000 to 30,000 a year in one or two years only.” Factors cited in the fluctua-l tions were:

1. Stop-go policies of the previous Government on the provision of finance, particularly that for State-provided housing; 2. Large fluctuations in the level of net immigration, which rapidly altered real housitfg needs. During discussions, representatives of the building sector stressed that any action taken to deal with the problem should provide for a reasonbly stable growthpath for the industry. It was felt undesirable to build up the capacity of the industry to a peak from which it would quickly have to contract again. Recovery programme Measures to deal with the situation which most members of the group supported included the following: 1. Increasing training and retraining in the industry, on the following lines: (a) Revising apprenticeship systems in line with changing needs; ■(b) Adopting a fbrm of adult! training, supported by a| system whereby em-l ployers should be given extended subsidies or] tax deductions fori training purposes. 2. The issue of temporary extra licences for material isupplies in the building industry and other sectors, thus employing part of the high level of overseas exchange reserves. 3. Encouragement of immigration by building workers. It is interesting to note that immigration was accorded third priority by the igroup. The view was.that it was limited by the availbility jof suitable migrants, by {problems met in housing the additional workers, and by the relatively high wages it would be necessary to pay workers attracted back from Australia. Migration anti inflation Here, the oft-mentioned view of economists —that migration is inflationary—was expressed again. “Since each thousand migrants need about 300 more houses, the restriction of immigration (including that of unassisted immigrants) would have an impact in reducing the demand for housing; but the desirability of doing so must;

be assessed on other grounds.’ :’[ The group was divided on [several issues. A majority i[felt that Government finance (for housing should be regula ’[ted so that it did not furthei I increase pressure on the II industry in current conditions i' Some members felt that (though regional development [[might help in the long run, it ■[was not a short-term solution. One member suggested (that the operation of the : I Town and Country- Planning ; Act discouraged people from • living in rural areas. ’ All agreed, however, that > an objective determination oi >!housing needs was needed •[and that this preferably ; involved the prompt setting- ; up of the National Housing ; Authority. ■ Migration policy It does not seem likely, in [view of the opinions expressed by the National Develop- [ ment Council group on popu- ' lation and migration, that the ! Government will seek to increase New Zealand’s labour force by instituting a large-scale system of assisted immigration. This group met difficulty in defining the concept of optimum population, and efforts to determine this were regarded as being unrealistic. The chairman (Sir Malcolm Burns) commented on projections contained in the Target Advisory Group’s report on population growth rates, and noted that they (were based on annual migration increases ranging from nil to 15,000. Of more importance than size is the growth rate of a population. The group does not consider the present slow-ing-down in New Zealand’s growth rate as a cause for concern—but it is acknowledged that a more marked drop in population growth could increase the number of old people and reduce the [younger workers. [ Sir Malcolm Burns believes [that New Zealand’s main [immigration problem is the [assimilation of the immi-

.’’grants into New Zealand n society. At present, the eduy! cation of a proportion of :e immigrants, particularly j- those from the Pacific Islands. > r is quite inadequate to enable ie them to adopt the New Zeas land way of life. They are often untrained in the skills lt and to the extent required it [by industry. | "“A more selective immigra7[tion policy, with particular p! reference to the Pacific e Islands might be the solution,” Sir Malcolm Burns n comments. “It is also necesIsary to consider more aid (especially education in the ” English language being con- ■' centrated in the areas from Viwhich Polynesian immigrants ’■[come, in order to facilitate g their assimilation.” [Minister’s direction ■ It may be thought that di.s---n cussion on these subjects s- tends to become academic >-l among the advisory groups, i-llf so, the new Government e[has been quick to put it back o on the rails. 's The Minister of Finance a [(Mr Rowling), who is also d deputy chairman of the ■National Development Coun.,[cil, gave a firm direction when ff[he closed its recent meeting: d ! “It is the task of the National Development Coun,[cil to shake the system free Hof masses of trivia. Who, n j except the paper manufac’iturers, wants 600 recome[mendations? It is your task. Mat sector council level, to "[isolate the real bottlenecks y that impede economic, social >- ! and cultural progress, to seek n'out the alternative remedies. , and to reduce these to a n limited number of possible a I plans of action. The Govern is ment must then choose and '-[act . . . s' “Who can really be satisir fied with the progress of the '-[least five years? If either d | partner allows the National h | Development Council to be>f!come an exercise in embalmeling ideas, a kind of thought [museum for posterity—if it is [ stands by and allows those n|ideas to be interred within e|a mountain of reports—this i-1 concept will have failed.”