The Hawera Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1935. IS N.Z. DELUDING HERSELF?

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 8 November 1935, Page 6

The Hawera Star

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1935. IS N.Z. DELUDING HERSELF?

delivered every evening Dy § o clock in Hawera, Manaia, Kaupokonui, Otakeho, Oeo, Pihama, Opunake. Eltham, NgaereMangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna. Te Kiri. Mahoe, howgarth, Manutabi, Kakaramea, Alton. Hurleyville, Patea, Wbenuakura, Waverley, Mokoia, WhakamaraOhangai. Meremere, Fraser Hoad and Ararata

A good deal has been heard lately, after years of silence, of the need for, increasing the population of New Zealand by scientifically jilanned migration schemes, but it is to be feared that public opinion in the Dominion is still a long way off being aroused on this subject. The trouble is that it is “nobody’s business’’—and it will continue io be nobody’s business until Parliament and Government become convinced that there is a need for study and action. The elector is apathetic because he is conscious of the fact that too many of the people already in the country are finding difficulty in earning a livelihood. Parliament remains inactive for similar reasons. But if it were nationally realised Thai there is a definite danger of the Dominion’s population decliniig —not at, some far-distant date, but in our own time—the Government and the country as a whole would surely wake up to the fact, that we cannot go on as we are doing. It is said by some that New Zealand is carrying too much “overhead,” that she has too much invested in harbours, highways, railways and in cities for the size' of her population. The usual reply to that statement is thap this is a progressive country, with a great future before it and that we are building for that future. The logic of that reply is lost, however, when it has to be admitted that we have no plans for achieving that future state where there will be double the present population to make use of the facilities already provided—and, incidentally, to help to pay for them. In the absence of any such effort, are we not as a people deluding ourselves ? May there not be some truth in the accusation that New Zealanders are too anxious to enjoy the amenities of Old World ■ conditions before they Lave earned them? It may help to destroy the current popular impression that population and immigration are subjects of mere academic interest if. we quote from the Statistical Report on Population for the year 1934-35, for statisticians are acknowledged to be singularly unexcitable persons who draw conclusions onlj from known facts. “The stage now reached in the movement of population is undoubtedly the most momentous in the history of New Zealand,” states the report. “From 1840 up to the present day every year has recorded an increase of population, fluctuating in degree, but still an increase. The note of unbroken growth, so long maintained, has boon accepted as a matter of course, and the possibility of a stationary population —even a declining one—within the immediate future will undoubtedly present a serious shock to those who have not kept in touch with trends of popula-

then. The experience of the past year, may be summed up briefly by saying that it continued on the same lines as its immediate predecessors. For the* year ended March 31, 1935, the increase in population was 10,715, equal to 0.69 per cent, of the population at the beginning of the year. Exclusive of Maoris, the increase was 9020, or 0.61 per cent. The Maori population ... is at present increasing more rapidly than the white population. These rates ' increase are the lowest since 1890 and 1891.” After dealing with averages of natural increase and net migration increases since 1875 and during the post-war era, the report states that the natural increase ratio was formerly usually high in New Zealand, the annual average, for instance, reaAing 29.41 per 1000 of mean population in the five-year period of l 87 6; The 1934 figure of 7.99 per 1000, the lowest point yet reached in a long decline, spoke for itself. The erstwhile favourable ratio of natural increase in New Zealand was due to its exceptionally low death-rate, now and for very many years the lowest in the world. It is out of the question to expect furthei considerable falls in the deathrate ; in fact, with the less favourable age-constitution of the population as now developing, a poteiition rise must be envisaged. The birth-rate, which, for instance averaged annually 41.21 per 1000 of mean- population in l ß < b - BU > has-fallen to 18.80 in 1930, 18.42 in 1931, 17.09 in 1932, 16.59 m 1933, and 16.47 in 1934 “ That the decline: in the birthrate over the last four years is partly, even mainly, due to conditions caused by the depression and therefore, it may be assumed, temporary in nature, seems clear. It is equally clear, however, that depression conditions merely intensified a long-persisting decline. This decline is not peculiar to New Zealand, blit is almost the uni" versa! experience, nor does it appear to have yet been successfully arrested by remedial measures attempted in a number of countries. It has been noted above that the apparent natural increase ratio in 1934 was 7.99 per 1000 of mean population, and such a figure may convey the erroneous impression that there is still a substantial margin of increase in population. This is not so. Based on expectation of life figures calculated for 1931,. an ‘ equilibrium.’ birth-rate of over 15 per 1000 of mean population is required to maintain even a stationary population, and should the death-rate increase (as it has, for instance, in 1934 as compared with 1931) a higher 1 birth-fate would be necessary. It is. clear that the margin of increase is precariously low and will vanish in a few years if the present trend continues.” With a vanishing margin of natural increase and an excess of departures... from. the country over now arrivals, it is no exaggeration to state that New Zealand is faced with a population crisis which calls for immediate study. __________