PRACTICAL MIGRATION POLICY

Evening Star, Issue 23378, 22 September 1939, Page 2

PRACTICAL MIGRATION POLICY

The practical migration policy put forward by Mr Y, T. Shand. of Christchurch, was outlined and discussed at the Social Credit meeting on Wednesday. The scheme fulfils (it was said) the three conditions laid down by General Booth for successful migration —viz., that it must be beneficial to both tho country receiving and losing the migrant and to tho migrant himself. The problem of adding to New Zealand’s population calls urgently for solution if only from the point of view of defence_ (the danger from without) or to obtain a more Balanced economy (the danger from within). Mr Shand suggests that 3J million people could be brought to New Zealand within the next 10 years, 2i million of whom might bo drawn from Great Britain’s so-called surplus population and one million from the best of those offering from Northern Europe. There is in Great Britain a strata of about eight million people who are a liability on the taxpayers of the nation. Tliis scheme proposes to estimate the taxpayer’s liability to tho individual family applying for migration, to capitalise it and exchange New Zealand bonds held in London for an issue of British bonds to that amount, thus securing migrants and at the same time alleviating the taxpayer s burden. These bonds would then be repatriated with the migrants to New

Zealand, and after deducting expenses the bonds or their equivalent in capital would bo vested in each individual migrant and become his or her absolute property. Mr Shand takes'the example of a family which is a liability to the extent of £234 per annum. Halve this to allow for any off-setting advantages that may accrue to tho taxpayer, and one can hardly say that, if New Zealand took over this familv as it stands capitalised at £2,000 in New Zealand 4 per -cent, debentures held in London fequal to £2,500 in New Zealand) less all transport charges, the British taxpayer would be anything else than a gainer over the transaction from a strict profit and loss point of view. Tho advantages of such a scheme to Britain may further bo summarised as follows;—(1) The general increase of prosperity in the Empire by reason of a more balanced distribution of population. (2) The alleviation of her unemployment without increased taxation. (3) Increased employment in industry by virtue of New Zealand having £11,000,000 a year added" to her buying power. (This figure represents tho annual interest paid by New Zealand to England; on repatriation of the debt, the interest would, of course, be renounced by England, but she would bo correspondingly compensated by being relieved of her liabilities.) (4) Better prices for British agriculturalists, whose products would cease to compete with those Dominion products hitherto sold at low prices for debt servicing. Tho benefits accruing to New Zealand would bo the sharing out of the National Debt with- the resultant decrease in individual taxation and the general stimulus which would be imparted to agriculture and industry by means of a greater home market" for consumption. There would also result a more balanced economy in public works and services, while New Zealand would at last bo able to reduce her debt to Great Britain. Past conferences on this subject have envisaged overseas loans as the only means of financing migration. Surely, as the author of this scheme points out it is not the multiplication of new debts but tho extinction of old ones that is required. There is the crime of a sparsely-populated land one of tho most eminently desirable in the world flaunted in the face of the over-crowded millions in other lands —a menace to ourselves and the Empire. Every day the challenge to use it or yield ’it creeps closer. Britain cannot hold tho gates open for ever.