The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1936. EMPIRE MIGRATION

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 10, 7 October 1936, Page 10

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1936. EMPIRE MIGRATION

The opinions advanced and the decisions resolved in the debate on migration at the Empire Chambers of Commerce Congress yester day revealed an impressive unanimity. '‘’Delegates were agreed that the peopling of the Empire’s thinly-populated spaces can no longer be left in the air: that constructive statesmanship is needed, and shou d be brought into action without further delay. That is more e^ sl Y said than done. Democratic Governments follow, they do not lead, public opinion. The present difficulty in New Zealand is that whenever the public is asked to think about immigration it immediately thinks about unemployment. How to get rid of unemployment,. and the taxation incidental thereto, is one of our standing obsessions, making it very difficult indeed for an approach to be made to the problem of immigration with open minds. It is hard to persuade people that immigration and unemployment are separate and distinct questions; much harder to convince them that intelligently-planned immigration might go far to relieve unemployment. Some time ago the Prime Minister said that if tht conditions of existence were made attractive enough, the problem of increasing our population by immigration would settle itself. But Viscount Elibank, in his contribution to yesterday’s debate, showed that other things had to be taken into consideration. The preference in New Zealand is for immigrants with capital. Viscount Elibank pointed out that Britain exported capital as well as migrants, and what both capital and migrants wanted was a fair deal.? They had to beware, he said, of “restrictive legislation hampering capital . . . which would tax it out of existence, or would do anything to make trade impossible, or so handicap it that it could not conduct its enterprises under proper conditions.” Very little capital, he added, would go out of the Old Country into any Dominion which subjected investors to such restrictions—it would go elsewhere. The same argument applies to those immigrants with capital whom we would like to welcome, to this country. It is a question wnether recent New Zealand legislation is likely to create attractions for immigrants with capital. “Courage and valour and a slice of good luck,” said Mr. J. E. Emlyn-Jones in the admirable speech with which he opened yesterday’s debate, “have made the British Empire what it is.” That is true, but the era of high adventure in colonial pioneering has ended. The problem now is how to organise production and distribution so that there will be work for everybody throughout the Empire who is willing to work. Mr. Emlyn-Jones warns us against too confident reliance on housing and other schemes financed by the State as, a means of absorbing workers. These, he reminds us, soon reach the point of saturation. "You can only absorb unemployed by.increasing the country’s wealth,” he said. One way of doing that is to offer attractive inducements to people overseas, having capital and desiring to emigrate, to come to New Zealand. Another is to encourage the establishment of new industries financed with overseas capital. Restrictive legislation is likely, in both cases, to have the opposite effect.

This question of increasing the populations of the Empire countries must lie settled in one way or another, whatever may be the difficulties. It is not only a question of populating British territories but also of defending them. Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of migration. Linked, with this problem are those of Empire trade and commerce. Australia, as was pointed out in the debate, is aiming at a balanced economy—“level pegging,” .so to speak, for primary and secondary industries. New Zealand policy is tending in the same direction. But that is a policy of self-sufficiency, impracticable because of our dependence on British markets and Britain’s dependence on ours. Indeed, the more closely we examine the problem of migration the more bewilderingly complicate become the issues involved. Fundamentally it is a political question, the answer to which must be found by the statesmanship of the Empire. The result of yesterday’s debate was an instructive display of the difficulties. It is little use discussing measures until the States of the Commonwealth harmonise their principles of action. But in emphasising the need for action the congress has done valuable service.