Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 25. 1923. PLANS AND PERFORMANCE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 123, 25 May 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 25. 1923. PLANS AND PERFORMANCE

The Chamber of Commerce desires a carefully considered and detailed scheme, of immigration, and suggests a Commission to prepare it. W© can support the demand for a carefully considered scheme, but, because we also desire to have the scheme acted upon, we cannot support the Commission proposal. Commissions are not always futile; they always produce recommendations. But until they produce some means of translating those recommendations into action their usefulness must remain severely limited. An exception to the general rule is to be found in the Commission on Venereal Dis-_ ease, which enabled cool and expert judgment to be pronounced upon an issue where clashes of opinions and prejudices were hindering effective action. The success of even that Commission cannot be assured unless the Government is induced by public opinion to act upon the recommendations put forward. We cannot see that immigration at present is a parallel case. The subject may be best considered by examining a possible order of reference for a Commission. It might be directed to inquire as to : (1) The types of immigrants most suitable for New Zealand; (2) means to be adopted in selecting and attracting such immigrants ; (3) measures of assistance in transportation ; (4) capacity of the Dominion for absorbing newcomers ; (5) safeguards against possible drift to centres of population and into overcrowded unskilled occupations ; (6) means of training and settlement, including grants of land, advances, and other forms of assistance; (7) provision of temporary employment pending permanent settlement; (8) best methods of recruiting for skilled tradesmen where such are required. Possibly there are other questions, but an order of reference such as that outlined would cover most of the ground.

The point we now wish to make is this—that the Government has already means of obtaining all this information. It has a High Commissioner's Office in London with an immigration officer who, presumably, knows his part of the business. It has an Immigration Department in New Zealand, also Labour, Lands, Agriculture, State Advances, Industries „and Commerce, Public Works, and other Departments interested in various aspects of the settlement and immigration problem. These Departments are established and are- dealing every day with some question or other which is closely related to the items in the order of reference. The Labour Department knows where skilled tradesmen are wanted. The Department of Industries and Commerce* investigates from time to time the prospects of new industries, the Lands Department has settlement areas under 'its control, and'the Department of Agriculture has probably heard already from farmers of any shortcomings of immigrants who have come out as farm labourers. Where the Departments have not the required information, they would, no doubt, know best v.'V.ore to obtain it. Indeed, an Immigration Commission, if one were- set up, would probably seek at once to shorten its labours by callingl Departmental officers before it and asking their advice. Why should a Commission be appointed merely to do that?The Commission would have to begin at the beginning and go over much ground which is perfectly familiar to the Government's own officers. The information is there — knowledge and opinions are- to be!^cl. ' t Wb,at is required, ia, goUegtioft.

and- orderly arrangement of the information. In our opinion, this work can be carried out as satisfactorily and with greater celerity by the Minister of Immigration and his officers. If the Minister and his advisers feel that they can be assisted by Chambers of Commerce, Farmers' Unions, and similar organisations, surely the assistance would be readily given to them.

A Commission has possibilities of usefulness in creating a well-in-formed public opinion upon the necessity for immigration, and in correcting some Labour views which we believe to be misconceived ; but even in this sphere of usefulness the Minister and his staff, making proper use of the means of publicity at their disposal, may do all that is possible. We are not sanguine enough to believe that either a Minister or a Commission can remove all the Labour prejudices. But the greatest advantage of the Ministerial and Departmental method of inquiry is, to our mind, that it is much more likely to lead to results. Collection of information is first necessary; then co-ordination of effort. No Commission can compel thSs co-ordina-tion. The instruction for it must come from Cabinet, and must go to the Departmental heads concerned. There is greater likelihood of this being achieved if the Departments which are to act together have planned together. Possibly it will be objected that this is a pretty plan, but must fail because the Government will not take, the first step. We admit the difficulty of inducing the Government to act: but we cannot see that a Government which will not act without a Commission is sure to become energetic when a Commission asks it to. All the 'dead reports of bygone Commissions would rise from their pigeon-hole burying-places to protest against such a delusion.