Editorial: No cause to fear higher population

Ask anyone if New Zealand needs a larger population and it is almost possible to see the heart doing battle with the head. What the individual would like is, quite obviously, not the same as what is best for the country. More bodies mean less space and a potential threat to a cherished lifestyle. Yet those bodies also offer the potential for an economic transformation that would lift New Zealand from its lowly position on the OECD ladder.

The heart, of course, often wins out in such conundrums, even if we know it will probably be to our eventual discomfort. So it was with the Herald-DigiPoll which found that of 800 people surveyed, 60 per cent were against a larger population. So uniform was the sentiment that Asians made up the only group wanting more people.

Most surprisingly, the under-40s were the age group most vehemently opposed to a larger population. Because young people are more economically literate than their forebears, it might have been expected they would acknowledge the benefits that would flow from a population boost. Instead, people in the older age groups were more amenable to increased immigration. Why? Perhaps their experience led them to think less of themselves and more of what was best for future generations.

That is another way of saying that the younger age group's opposition was prompted by selfishness. If so, their response is misguided. They would do better to approach the issue from a standpoint of selfish unselfishness, the phrase sometimes used to describe the attitude in the United States as it benefited hugely, and enduringly, from successive waves of highly motivated people.

Those opposed to more immigration should also ponder the consequences if such a policy came to pass. Population loss would be inevitable, given the drain of New Zealanders overseas and declining fertility rates. This would cause the domestic market to shrink, investment to dry up, the economic outlook to darken and living standards to fall. That, in turn, would lead to more of our brightest taking their talents overseas. Why would they not, for example, go to Australia, a country eager for young, talented and ambitious people; a country that sees its optimum population base as 24 million; and a country where people, on average, earn $180 more a week than in New Zealand?

Australia, another underpopulated country, can teach us much about migrants. Already, however, benefits are starting to accrue here from a larger intake of immigrants. The import of a broader range of skills, wealth and enterprise has led to the establishment of new businesses, the availability of more jobs, a greater demand for local goods and services and a larger tax base. The enlarged mass and strength of the domestic market has proved its worth over the past year, underpinning the economy as the export sector struggled.

It is not surprising that Asians were the one group to say that New Zealand needs more people. They echo the view of most migrants, some of whom have simply given up and moved across the Tasman. Their despondency is understandable. Despite what many New Zealanders think, this country could easily accommodate far more people and still protect the best of its environment and lifestyle. With proper planning, services and infrastructure could be upgraded to cope with population growth. It is worth noting that 50 years ago New Zealand was expected to have a much larger population now than has turned out to be the case.

In fact, projections suggest that young New Zealanders will continue to enjoy a charmed life. The population is now seen as peaking at 4.8 million in 2046. Additionally, at the Government's behest, the average annual migrant intake is set to decline. That will appeal to selfish instincts. It is not, however, the sort of equation that produces long-term growth and prosperity.