The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1936. A Warning To New Zealand

Southland Times, Issue 22999, 19 September 1936, Page 6

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1936. A Warning To New Zealand

From time to time grave warnings are given of the effects of the progressive decline in the birthrate. This week Commissioner David Lamb of the Salvation Army forecast the end of the British Empire because of the fall of the rate of natural increase among the white population of the Empire and the steadily increasing pressure of population elsewhere. A short time ago an article in The Economist, to which editorial reference was made in The Southland Times, showed that on the most favourable reckoning a quarter of the population of England and Wales would be lost by the year 2035, and that on the least favourable reckoning seven-eighths of the population would be lost. When statements such as these are made people express astonishment and alarm — and then forget all about them. The decline in the birth-rate still continues, the day of reckoning is left to take care of itself. If the race is threatened with extinction why worry about it now: it will be a century or two hence before the whites are overwhelmed by the darker peoples. Meantime let us eat, drink and be merry—without children. This seems to be the philosophy of most people in the Empire and in other European countries; but it is a philosophy which, if applied to all lines of conduct, would soon lead to chaos and decay. People do owe a responsibility to the future. This is acknowledged in many of their everyday actions. But in the allimportant matter of population it is a duty which is frequently ignored. To awaken the people of New Zealand to the danger of the position Mr A. E. Mander has written a very frank booklet (L. T. Watkins, Ltd., Wellington). Its title is “To Alarm New Zealand”; and it will be surprising if anyone who reads it does not feel alarmed at the effects of the falling birthrate in the Dominion. By using official figures Mr Mander supports all the statements he makes and the inferences he draws. If the present trends of population continue the population of New Zealand will never reach 1,650,000: within nine years it will come to a standstill. “If the population is allowed to come to a standstill, if indeed it is not increased, if it is not increased very largely, if it is not increased without delay, then the outlook for the Dominion is hopeless,” Mr Mander states. It is not difficult to understand why there is danger of the population becoming stationary. For each 1000 of the population there are only two babies born nowadays for every five that were born 60 years ago. Fifty years ago there was one baby to every four women between 20 and 45 years of age: today there is one baby .to every 11. In 1881 there was one baby a year among every three married women under the age of 45; in 1910 there was one baby among every five; to-day there is one baby among every eight. To-day nearly one quarter of all marriages in New Zealand are childless; and so small are the families among the remaining married couples that only 22 per cent, of marriages produce four children or more. This means that 22 per cent, of the married couples are to-day responsible for bringing into the world more than half of those who will constitute the next generation of New Zealanders. The rate of natural increase in New Zealand has fallen from 14.40 per 1000 of population in 1922 to 7.91 in 1935. The decline has been progressive. Where will it stop? This is the question which Mr Mander asks, and which he submits must be answered by constructive suggestions to remedy the position. The decreased birth-rate in the Dominion is not due to diminished fertility, or a rise in the average age of women at marriage, or to a larger proportion of spinsters; but to voluntary restriction. There are, Mr Mander argues, only two ways of increasing the birth-rate. One is by propaganda, the other is the provision of substantial financial aids as an incentive to parents to have more children. It is very doubtful if propaganda will assist propagation; and, as Mr Mander observes, something more than the raising of incomes is necessary to make married couples have more children. The average well-to-do people have fewer children than the average poor. Unless part of the family income were made conditional upon there being children from the marriage, and proportionate to the number of children in the family, the birth-rate would not be stimulated. Before suggesting a scheme of family allowances on these lines Mr Mander makes this point: It must be realized that although the Dominion desperately needs a rise in the general birth-rate, yet the birth-rate to-day is already much too high in one section of the community—among those who are least likely to have normally intelligent and normally healthy children. The Dominion does not

need mere numbers. There are three aristocracies to be built up: the aristocracy of intellect and ability, the aristocracy of personal character and the aristocracy of physical fitness. This point is very important. It would be fatal to adopt some scheme which, in actual practice, helped and encouraged only the poorest section, the unskilled casual workers, to have larger families. The great need is to promote larger families in the middle class and the skilled working class in which there is a higher average of physical and mental fitness and in which the children would have the advantage of upbringing under decent home conditions.

With this safeguard Mr Mander would like to see introduced a universal scheme of family allowances —substantial allowances made to all qualified (that is all physically and mentally fit) parents. He admits that a huge sum would be involved, in fact that at least one-eighth of the present national income would have to be redistributed. “But is there any other way of restoring the birthrate?” he asks; “well, is there. It is very doubtful if an alternative can be found. Just how far a scheme of family allowances would stimulate the birth-rate is difficult to gauge. There are unquestionably married people who would be willing to have larger families if through increased income they were better able to provide for their children. But there are many others who have no faith in the Biblical maxim that happy is the man who has a quiverful of children; who prefer to agree with Drummond of Hawthornden “How many troubles are with children born. For such as these a family allowances scheme will not be a stimulus. But unless some means are found both in New Zealand and in other countries in the Empire for arresting the decline in the natural increase of population the outlook seems no less gloomy than Commissioner Lamb has described it.