SOME POPULATION FIGURES.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 37, 27 February 1937, Page 4

SOME POPULATION FIGURES.

The New Zealand Government Sfcatistician has issued his , final sumiuary based upon the census that was taken in March of last year. His figures go fully to confirm all that has recently been said with regard to the ominous outlook ftfr adequately populating this otherwise highly producJAve country. In the course of his cdmmeht M*. Rutcher te1^ us that, ,exclusive of Maoris — that term covering all tb^e Gf the half-blood or more — the population nurabered 1^91,484 as compared with 1,344,469 at the 1926 census. Th,e Increase was thus just about 11 per cent. on the earlier f>.gures, or little more than an avera.ge of one per cent. per a/unumi ,fthe smallest intercensal percentage increase upon rrsc.ord." There is thus every justification for his sf>ying that ''the stage now reached in the movement of pojj^yjation is ' undoubtedly the most momentous in the hist'oXy of New Zealand." Examining the ca.uses that have hid up to this sorry record, we find, that the main feature is '!he steady decline in the natural increase, the excess of birtb/s over deaths. While for the five years 1876-80 the natural increase ratio was 29^ per 1000 of mean population, the lriS5 figure had fallen to something under 8 per 1000, the 'lowest point yet reached in a lopg and almost constant decline. The Statistician acknowledgy»s the fact that the formej; favourable ratio of natural increase was to some extent due to our exceptionally low death/yate, now and for many years the lowest in the world. At tli'e same time, it is out of the question to expect further aj^preciable falls in the death-rate. In fact, with the less favc/urable "age-constitution" of the population brought about lyy the low birth-rate, a rise in the death-rate is ere very long to be expected. Thati at any rate, is wha.t comparative figiyi/es suggest with an annual birth-rate over 41 per 1000 sixty. Vears ago as contrasted with 16 per 1000 in 1935. It is allowable t/iat the marked decline in birth-rate over the last five ^ars is partly due to conditions arising . from the ''depres.cyion.,, It is equally clear, however, that these conditions n/erely intensified a long-persisting dqcline — a decline, by the, way which, strangely enough seems to have accompajiied iir^ppovement in the general standard of living and in the prc/vision of facilities for the upbringing and education of /he children. Mr. ButXsher is quick to correct any misconception that may be for^?aed because there still appears to be some substantial mf/f/gin of natural increase in population.' Based on ' expectat/fon of life" figures, he tells us, an "equilibrium" birth-rat'4, of over 15 per 1000 of inean population is required to mair^fcain even a stationary population, and as shown we are p7rilously close to that ratio. As his report puts it> *'it is clrAr that the margin of increase is precariously low and will vanish in a few years if the present trend continues. Touching further on the "age-constitution" of the popu- * la/ion ,it is pointed out that on 20th April, 1926, there were ?^67,706 children under ten years of age, while the corresponding number at the latest census showed' a decrease of 15,521j although in the interval the general population had gone up by 140,5 7 7i. • " Erom this it can be seen that the over-all average age of the population is steadily moving to higher years, a movement that is obviously by no means desirable. Nor must we overlook the fact that all the quite laudable philanthropic provisions that. have been and are being made for those of old age and poor health will almost necessarily have the effect of raising that average. At the same time, as has been shown, the proportionate number of the younger f o'lk upon whom the ■ burden of making these provisions must largdly fall -is steadily going down.