Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1940. POPULATION CHANGES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 135, 8 May 1940, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1940. POPULATION CHANGES.

Based on returns in the 1936 census, tlie Census and Statistics Department lias issued a comprehensive review of tlie change in the age distribution in this country. The position and its implications for the future are described as definitely disquieting. The main reason for this is the decline in the birth-rate, the seriousness of which was accentuated in the depression years from 1931 to 1935, and in spite of a recovery by 1938 had failed to reach tlie level of 1930. An interesting comparison is drawn between 1916 and 1935. In tlie former year the population was nearly 400,000 less than it was in 1936, but there were then 15,317 more children under the age of five years than in the subsequent period; at the other end of the scale tlie numbers between 50-59 and 60-69 increased by more than 100 per cent; the numbers in the group between 70-79 by 67 per cent., and in the group 80 and over by more than 74 per cent. The Dominion is not singular in its fall in the birth-rate, of which many countries have had experience; here, however, it continued to a much lower level than in other States, producing a condition in which the growth of population slowed down to the point of stagnation. Last year there was an improvement, a gain in population of 20,963 being helped by a higher birth-rate and a lower deathrate, giving a natural increase of 14,675. With a higher rate of marriages in recent years it is hoped that this healthy sign will continue to be recorded, but the steady fall in the birthrate over the years mentioned, accompanied by tlie world’s lowest death-rate, has given the Dominion a rising proportion of population in the higher and generally non-reproductive agegroups. After one hundred years of development it is far from reassuring to learn that, while in the four years 1874 to 1878 the increase was 115,000 and the rate 38.36 per cent., between 1930 and 1939 only the same number were added to the population, or eight per cent., a yearly average of only 11,500. The review puts the matter clearly when it says: “To maintain the 1926 proportions the 1936 numbers would need an additional 32,000 children under five, 19,000 children of from five to nine inclusive, 14,000 children of from 10 to 14 inclusive, and 6000 young folk of from 15 to 19. Heavy deductions would ‘be required in the upper groups of the 1936 ages.” An answer to such a position is the natural increase, but it has proceeded at such a slow rate, that many peol pie are impelled to think that the problem now can only be met by ' a keen immigration policy, which gave the Dominion so much of its earlier population. On this point, however, the review observes

that it is a “cogent reflection that the population of the mother countries is in much the same position as that of. New Zealand, and that the sources of past immigration into New Zealand may not be. available in future years. In any event, it will be admitted by most that recruiting' an otherwise declining or stationary population by migraiion would not be entirely satisfactory.” There is a sharp lesson for the Dominion in these figures. If our progress is to be maintained, our defence assured, our social legislation kept intact, and industries developed, we must have population. The best immigrant is the one born in the country, but if the natural increase fails to make the material contribution expected, immigration must sooner or later be regarded as essential.