NEW ZEALAND

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 52, Issue 3750, 1 May 1936, Page 5

NEW ZEALAND

THE LABOUR VICTORY. POPULATION AND FUTURE. London, March 14. The “Morning Post” in a leading article on “Empire and Man Power,” recalls that Mr. M. J. Savage, the New Z-aland Prime Minister, has recently declared that population is the ■first line of defence. The writer goes on to say: “In the past the Dominions have been able to look to these islands for as large a supply of immigrants as they could comfortably accommodate; what will they do when, in the near future, they find that the reservoir has not only ceased its overflow but is steadily drying up? “It can be stated with certainty that unless the birthrate rises very substantially the population will begin to fall at a progressive pace as from ten or fifteen years hence, till in a century it may be no more than half what it is now. How, with a prospect such as this, can the Dominions hope to replenish their ‘first line of defence’ by immigration from the United Kingdom? Or, to return for a moment to the economic aspect of the matter, how is the United Kingdom, with a falling population, to t.bsorb an expanding output of Dominion foodstuffs? “These,” adds the Morning Post, “are only a few of the problems which will almost certainly be preoccupying the mind of Imperial statesmanship thirty, forty and fifty years hence The Labour Party. In an article in the “Contemporary Review,” Dr. W. P. Morrell explains the political position in New Zealand, and outlines the events which have led up to a Labour victory. “The raising of the exchange,” Dr. Morrell writes, “was probably necessary to save New Zealand farming and financial institutions connected with it from a disaster which would have given a grave shock to confidence. But it was widely felt to be a sacrifice of city interests, and the Government lost ground there which, despite a vigorous and fn many ways successful policy, it never regained. Nor did the Government’s vigour, traceable to Mr. Coates rather than to the Prime Minister, always get the credit it deserved. Neither Mr. Coates nor Forbes had the hold on the country that Seddon and Massey, and to a less

conspicuous extent, Ward, possessed before them; if they told the country that certain measures were good for it, the country was not prepared simply to take those measures on trust. Mr. Forbes was thought strong; Mr. Coates was suspected of » desire to domineer, and though he sought by pamphlets and newspaper articles to explain his measures to th public, his personality lacked that popular appeal which counts for more than argument.”

Judicious vagueness in regard to monetary reform, says Dr. Morrell, was coupled with specific proposals eminently calculated to appeal to the farmers—guaranteed prices to “farmers and others” and a readjustment of mortgages on the basis of these guaranteed prices. Labour seemed to promise them not only help in extricating themselves from their present difficulties but safeguards against such difficulties in future. “In social matters,” Dr. Morrell adds, “such as health and education, Labour’s programme will cost money; but these two portfolios are held by one of their ablest men, Mr. Peter Fraser, and more imaginative

administrtition than there has been in recent years might well have a tonic effect on the country.”