Yesterday Statistics NZ released the first results from the census earlier this year and the information and response to it has already been fairly interesting. This first set of data is intended to be used by the representation commission (didn’t even know such a thing existed) to set the electorate boundaries for the next election and the numbers say we will be getting an additional seat.
The number of people living in New Zealand on census night was 4,242,048, which was 214,101 more than at the last census seven years ago, Statistics NZ announced today.
“This means that, on average, the population has grown by about 31,000 people per year since the last census in 2006. This was slower growth than between 2001 and 2006, when the population grew by an average of about 58,000 per year,” Government Statistician Liz MacPherson said.
The increase in population means that at the general election next year there will be a total of 71 electorates. There will be one new North Island electorate, up from 47 at the last election. The number of Māori electorates will stay at seven, and the number of general electorates in the South Island is fixed at 16 by the Electoral Act 1993.
“Adding this new electorate means there will be one less list seat in the 120-seat parliament – excluding any overhang seats,” Ms MacPherson said.
The general electoral population is 2,867,110 for the North Island and 954,871 for the South Island. The Māori electoral population for New Zealand is 420,990.
This is the first information released from the 2013 Census – the official count of how many people and dwellings there are in New Zealand.
“It’s been seven years since the last census and a huge number of people and organisations – including central and local government, businesses, iwi, and community groups – are eagerly waiting for this information. It is also an important part of the electoral process,” Ms MacPherson said.
“The population number is lower than New Zealand’s estimated resident population, as it doesn’t include New Zealand residents overseas at the time of the census or the estimated number of people who didn’t complete the census. This shows the value of checking our population periodically with the census.”
“It has been our top priority to complete this work so that the Representation Commission can use it to determine the electorate boundaries and the location and name of the new electorate.”
We will release more detailed census information from 15 October.
So let’s look at the data. The largest electorate by number of people is Auckland Central which covers the CBD and the western bays area. The next two largest electorates after that are Hunua (which includes East Tamaki and Pukekohe) and Helensville (which includes Hobsonville, Greenhithe and Albany). The Rodney electorate is also up there being the fifth largest and including the area around Orewa, Silverdale and Whangaparaoa. When you consider how much growth has gone into these areas over the last 7 years it isn’t surprising to see them high on the list. The table below shows the population changes in each electorate from here however I’m not sure why the figures don’t match the total figures listed in the press release.
It’s also worth noting that it suggests 52% of all population growth over the last 7 years has occurred in Auckland. In other words Auckland is getting bigger and doing so faster than the rest of the country combined.
However it is crucial to point out that the data released so far is incomplete. As the press release states it doesn’t include people who might have been overseas at the time of the census or people who didn’t complete it. Those details won’t be released till next Monday. However that hasn’t stopped a bunch of right wing politicians jumping on the bandwagon and claiming that as a result the council should scale back the Unitary Plan and scrap the City Rail Link. Those doing so include
“The implication for the Unitary Plan is that the scaremongering around urban sprawl has been exactly that and we can now move to protect our unique suburbs from Brown’s infill plans.
“The implication for the CRL is of even greater concern. The Mayor wants to push this project forward despite flat public transport growth and now much lower population figures.
“The data released today will further reduce the benefits of the CRL because there will be fewer people to take the train. That means that we can expect less than 40 cents of transport benefit and well under 90 cents of economic benefit from the CRL for each dollar invested.
“Some of my Council colleagues and I, especially Chris Fletcher have always questioned whether the population projections assumed by the Auckland Council planners were realistic. It now appears they are not realistic and I am calling on those planners to make the necessary adjustments to the Unitary Plan.”
“No doubt the Government will be reassessing future infrastructure needs and the Auckland Council needs to do the same.”
The Inner City Rail Loop is just one of the projects that need to be reassessed in light of the new growth figures according to Cr Quax.
Auckland may have to dramatically rethink its Unitary Plan, according to a senior National MP, after early census figures indicate a big drop in population growth.
Maurice Williamson is the MP for Pakuranga as well as the Minister for Statistics.
He says the Unitary Plan was based on numbers from the last census, but the latest results prove Auckland will not grow by 1 million over the next 30 years.
“If this had been a 2 percent difference to what had been, that’s a minor difference,” he says. “But is dramatic – 58,000 per year for the country has dropped to 31,000. That’s very close to 50 percent.”
Mr Williamson says it would have been sensible for Auckland Council to wait until the census data was released before finalising the Unitary Plan.
And this news segment from Prime News
After the government agreed to eventually build the CRL, both Palino and Quax did quick u-turns on their support for the project- although Palino then started supporting the NZCID option of making it longer, more expensive and less useful. However as mentioned the numbers aren’t even complete and what’s more the CRL was assessed not using high growth assumptions but medium ones. I suspected all along that these politicians were just saying they supported the CRL because they thought it would look bad to oppose it and these press releases show that any support was wafer thin. One partial release of info from Stats NZ was all it took for them to throw that support under a line of buses heading to clog up CBD. It’s also a little odd that a government minister would so publicly make these comments just a few days before the completion of local body elections.
There is also another interesting question that has been rumbling around my head. Why did stats nz release the data this week a few days out from local body elections? They initially said the data wouldn’t be available until December and it appears that the more complete numbers are now due next week. With the rush of right wing politicians using the data to attack the CRL and Unitary Plan it makes you wonder whether there was political element to it.
Of course what all of these politicians fail to think about when using this data to jump on the CRL and Unitary Plan is the implications for their pet projects. If the population isn’t there for the CRL then it certainly isn’t there for another harbour crossing, it means we can scale back the East-west link, Puhoi to Wellsford, all of the motorway widening and a host of other road projects.
It’s also worth noting that population growth wasn’t one of the criteria that the government set a few months ago for building the CRL early. The conditions were on increasing patronage and employment in the CBD, both things that can be achieved without high population growth.
For Palino he has also effectively ruled out one of his key election planks, building a second CBD in Manukau because we wouldn’t need it if the population growth isn’t there. Lastly if we have to cut anything back from the Unitary Plan then we should start with the greenfield sprawl areas, the intensification has already been cut back across most of the city (except West Auckland).
Processing...
Presumably the somewhat lower numbers are due to the giant exodus to Australia over the 2008-2012 period. In recent months this has turned around dramatically.
Also the Unitary Plan is nowhere near providing sufficient capacity for 30 years of growth. Lower growth makes it less inadequate, hardly over the top.
+1. Completely agree.
One of the many things these politicians seem to be ignorant of is that the net migration needle is swinging very quickly back in NZ’s favour. More than any OECD country aside from Ireland, NZ’s net migration levels are extremely sensitive to economic growth. So the fact pop growth has been lower over the last 5 or so years is hardly surprising. What would surprise me, however, is if pop growth rates don’t pick up substantially in the next few years.
These politicians are demonstrating a true ignorance by judging the merits of a 30 year plan on 5 years of abnormally low population growth.
Exactly, there was that whole GFC thing…..with Australia one of the few nations to be job rich!
Estimates of a million or so NZers living abroad mean that even a fraction of those returning will create some real challenges for Auckland. Have these MPs seen the latest London house prices btw?
Lovely to see Williamson cooperating.
If anyone is wondering why Quax, Palino and Williamson aren’t like the rest of us. Their brains could be wired differently. Electroencephalograms show they have half as much activity in their anterior cingulate cortex. – http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12614-political-affiliation-could-be-all-in-the-brain.html
So urban densities, housing choice, sustainable cities, and Auckland’s rail link might be out of reach to all of us because certain politicians just can’t think very deeply. It’s a bit of a shame really. Come on thickos, bow out of public life and leave it to us smarties hey.
And Science comes to the rescue here 😛
Oh dear. Well might as well add David Thorton to the list with this piece: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=720306234650353&id=151075394906776 it is a public mode one so should be able to see it 😛
Hamish Keith did get this one bang on in Twitter just a moment ago: Even if Williamson is right, for once we will be ready for growth rather than being hurried along by it and getting it wrong
For once….
I agree, Fred. Growth forecast go up and down, and having a period of slower growth recently only buys us time. Also, growth is not so slow in the inner city and to the south and north of the city.
In particular, double-digit growth along Auckland’s spine from South (Hunua, Papakura) to North (East Coast Bays, Helensville, Rodney) would indicate that Auckland’s transport network is becoming more and more exposed to the risk of disruption on State Highway1. Is it not then logical to add both capacity and resilience to the system through a second transport mode (probably rail) all the way from Pukekohe to at least Albany? If it is to be rail then the second harbour crossing becomes more essential than ever, and that includes the CRL.
Rapid inner city growth is also interesting, and appropriate inner city transport modes will presumably receive higher priority, including street design that makes roads safer for walking and cycling. If this growth continues I can even see trams returning up and down Queen St and across to the Viaduct, Ponsonby, Newmarket and Parnell.
All very interesting, and as a bonus perhaps some tasty road-building savings to be had!
Some? Try $10 billion of savings 😉
Mmmm. Another David B? Was not me that wrote this. Namesake!
Hang on, did I miss something here? In seven years Auckland has grown by a figure equal to the total populations of Tauranga, Rotorua and Whangarei put together, which is more growth than the whole rest of the country saw, and this means we can throw out the growth management plan and dump all the transport infrastructure?
So what if it is only half the previously projected growth, that still requires Auckland to build the equivalent of all the housing, businesses, infrastructure and services of Christchurch and Hamilton from scratch in thirty years.
No don’t be silly. It means we can throw out the growth management plan and dump all the public transport infrastructure. We still need super-widened roads and several new motorways. Because.
there might be some validity to the statements by Palino et al if growth had stopped, however the question is not “will we reach X populations?” but “WHEN will we reach X?”
it is foolishness not to plan for X and a lower rate of growth simply means more time to amend and refine our plans, but reach X we most certainly will and taking sensible steps to accomodate growth is a no-brainer
“Mr Williamson says it would have been sensible for Auckland Council to wait until the census data was released before finalising the Unitary Plan.”
Yes it would have Mr Williamson, but then again you did say they’d not be out until December did you not, not “next week” as it seems they will be now?
And Auckland needs to get the Plan notified (which is now done), so it can be formally consulted on.
So they’d be damned if they held back for 6 months while they waited for the census data, revised the plan on the latest census data and then formally notified it and put it out for consultation. And further damned if they notified before then as they’ve now done.
And in any case, the consultation on the Plan is open until Feb next year so there is plenty of time to adjust the plan to the growth figures. (unless you’re planning on withholding the census data until after then too of course?).
And don’t forget this data will be 1 year old by the time the UP is finished consulting on. So its 20% out of date by then.
And of course, by the time the UP is operative – 3+ years from now, the current census data will be almost ready to binned and replaced by the data from the next one.
Matt: “If the population isn’t there for the CRL then it certainly isn’t there for another harbour crossing”
Of course that predicates that all the growth is evenly spread across the entire Auckland Council wards.
Those electoral counts give a different story, and I am sure that politicians of all ilk can spin this data to their own ends easily, to justify why we need a second road crossing because all those people are now living (or going to be living) north of the bridge etc etc.
But if 50% of the countries population growth occurred in Auckland electorates over the last 7 years during the largest economic downturn since the 30’s and largest exodus to Australia over the same time since whenever, you have to say, what happens in 5-10 years time when the economy is rocketing ahead again?
Do these guys think that 50% split of the countries growth occurring in the Auckland area will somehow reduce down by very much?
The Auckland electorate growth over the last 7 years has shown that we’re 11% towards the 1 million total more already.
While we can’t say exactly when we will get there, we can say with absolute certainty but it won’t take another 60 years to gain that other .9 million to exceed the million as Williamson seems to be suggesting with his suggestion that the last 7 years of growth is now the “new norm” for Auckland growth.
And in any case, its not just planning for “peak people” we have to care about its also “peak car” too – the other elephant in the room Williamson and his ilk ignore when they talk about lack of growth figures.
Of course the irony here is Mr Williamsons govt pushed for the September 30 date for notification of the Unitary Plan to ensure the special housing areas got off the ground. This release is appalling treatment of the Auckland Council yet again. Time and time again Len has to say they are getting on great, when some stupid minister lets of regular rants that show the govt would really love to be rid of him. At least Penny Hulse was able to vent her fury on facebook today.
Of course to me lower population growth should just mean that lots of the sprawl gets knocked on the head.
Able to vent and I shall put here (I asked her permission to quote Penny) for those who might not have seen it:
Rule number one: Ministers of Statistics are not meant to use statistics for political purposes.
Rule number two: Ministers should use the correct information. Williamson doesn’t realise that the figures used for the Unitary plan are based on Stats NZ forward projections. These figures will not be available until next year. The census data as presented is not directly relevant to the plan. It is prudent to plan for growth and as all the experts are saying, we have so far exceeded growth projection since 1991. If growth slows, so does development, no problem….we still need to plan a city around good transport and affordable housing choices.
I also had this from a Centre Right activist and fellow commentator allow ,me to post this as well today:
It could be possibly understand that Maurice Williamson has annoyed several of his colleagues by using his position as Statistics Minister to wade into the mayoral debate to help John Palino, and take a swing at Len Brown.
Williamson has effectively questioned the viability of the Government’s agreement with the Council over the City Rail Link, which the Government wanted (the issue) taken off the table (Unless it wants to give the Centre-Left free ammunition for continuous free hits that should not need to have happened). Even more annoyingly for the Government, Williamson’s clumsy decision to take a swing at Brown using dodgy figures.
As Williamson knows, immigration flows are cyclical. In the last three years, New Zealand has had low migration because we have been at the bottom of the migration cycle. All the current projections are that migration is picking up again, quickly, as happens in any cycle. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9071532/Migration-boom-could-defeat-home-loan-restrictions
It is dishonest of Williamson to suggest that long-term, New Zealand migration flows, and therefore Auckland population levels, will remain at constant lows. Williamson might be regretting that he bottled his opportunity to go after the Mayoralty himself when he had the chance, but he needs to remember that he’s a Government Minister, part of a Government that has to work with New Zealand’s largest city, and not Palino’s campaign sponsor.
So there are those of the Centre Right who were deeply annoyed at Williamson’s rant yesterday as well
And then there are my own “rantings”
The problem is the usual suspecting purporting all this false information and we wonder why we have a low turn out currently… This so needs to change 2016…
I made it my business to attend two meetings at which a bevy of Mayoral candidates spoke in turn to the assembled audience for a set period. I did not find John Palino impressive. He was big on rhetoric but completely with out any facts. Conversely Len Brown was quick with relevant facts which I guess is the advantage the incumbent usually has. For performance on the two nights he was the clear winner.
Worth noting that the population forsecasts for sub-national are updated annually and are not reliant on Census data. Census data will have the most impact on household composition and some intra-regional distributions (as we see with the electorate information)
Its a fiction to say that the CRL and the Auckland Plan need a drastic rethink as both were finalised based on Statistics NZ 2012 subnational population forecasts, not forecasts based on the 2006 Census.
The problem is that it’s a good stiry for the simple-minded. “Less growth! Lets stop all these expensive [rail] projects! Lets stop all those apartments in my backyard!”
For those who are already leaning against, this will be the line they will spout for the forseeable future, even if it is an outright lie in the context. Repeat it often enough, and many people will believe it.
I understand Gen Zero sent an OIA request regarding the “early release” of these census stats at this point of the election process. Probably nothing will come of it, but lets see.
That was in my personal capacity actually, but thought was worth a shot asking if there was any ‘direction’ from the Minister regarding this.
Also will kick one away tomorrow Luke after today’s piece I wrote in Williamson possibly interfering in our elections
Interesting I have heard that apparently the Stats NZ line as late as last week was that there would still be no results released till December. Then a few days later they are releasing an incomplete set which is being used for political attacks.
So the census figures do not suit the lefties.
They suit just fine, the problem is Palino, Williamson et al don’t understand them and telling fibs in ingnorance.
For God’s sake, don’t feed the troll!
lefties? righties? numbers are numbers, arguably SLOWER growth equally reduces the case for sprawl
No the regressives’ old dead horses are getting another flogging with little churning in their anterior cingulate cortexes as per usual. Nothing has changed. The regressives can generally only win arguments by boring every one else into submission, limp lettuce leaf attacks like this one not withstanding.
Exactly, how else do we interpret “concern” at the release of facts prior to an election? Presumably those requesting the OIA would have preferred the facts to be left until after the election? Nothing worse than facts getting in the way of agendas!
Not about agendas Geoff, it’s about releasing incomplete stats and using that as a basis for an opinion like that the CRL or unitary plan should be stopped.
There is no TECHNICAL problem, one way or another, left or right, because the 2013 Census is in line with the 2011 and 2012 Stats NZ subnational population forecasts, which were the basis for finalising both the Unitary Plan and the CRL work.
The only problem is inaccurate representation of what forecasts were used and what they say.
If that is the case, then instead of “lies, damned lies and statistics”, this is really “misrepresentation, damned misrepresentation, and damned misrepresentation of statistics”…
+1
Some quick thoughts on this:
1. According to Patrick Fontein the notified UP would only provide dwellings for an estimated 625 k people. Most of these in distant greenfield suburbs.
2. If the growth rate of the last seven years continued as a long term trend Auckland would have over 600 k additional people in 30 years time.
3. Given that the growth of the last 7 years is at a lower rate than historical levels it is likely long term growth will be higher than this.
4. Even if the UP does provide growth for 625 k people, this is mostly in market unattractive outer suburbs. Pressure on housing in the suburbs people actually want to live is likely to remain extremely high.
5. The Unitary Plan is not a plan to build houses. It only allows the market to provide this. Therefore there is no risk of ‘planning for too much growth’, because if the growth does not happen then the houses will not get built. This makes it even more stupid that the supposed free-market champions (Quax, Williamson) are using the new stats as a reason to force even more regulation to restrict development in market attractive areas.
6. When trying to promote motorways or greenfield development these people use economic arguments of promoting growth as justification.
point 5, nicely put Frank
Hey, lets have a bet – how many days until a major govt figure makes a “population is growing, this is why we need this megabuck [roading/greenfields housing] project” statement directly contradicting / ignoring these other statements?
Will it take them 2 days, or 3? I think by Friday they should be back on track.
They could use the 0.28 % annual growth rate of Northland as justification for Puhoi to Wellsford.
Yes exactly, this holding back of growth in Northland can be tolerated no longer! It is a clear demonstration why we need to get started immediately on a 4 lane expressway all the way to Cape Reinga, in order to encourage further migration to the region to unleash its economic potential.
To be fair Dan the combined growth of areas that will directly benefit from the extended Northern Motorway and new harbour crossing represent a 52% growth on the North (excluding Northland) and some of the 22% growth of central Auckland would benefit from a new harbour crossing as well.
That is a significant population increase in the areas that will be better served by improving road transport north.
Frank good summary,
There is however one point that Williams et al should note:
“Therefore there is no risk of ‘planning for too much growth’,because if the growth does not happen then the houses will not get built.”
True – with one exception – if the council has to provision external roads, water, sewerage etc for the masses that never arrive, then there is a very real opportunity cost of doing too much too soon. However, this tends to apply mostly in those greenfields sprawly areas as they have no infrastructure to speak of and need all that before the developer will develop the land.
Whereas inner suburbs have most of these already have this, they just need to be enhanced at the same time as growth occurs, not ahead of it.
So if the growth doesn’t occur there is no real cost.
Greg, except that the developers build the roads for their developments, roads (and other infrastructure) are then vested in the council, councils rarely build new roads
That’s not true Steve. The council is investing millions into new roads at Westgate to enable the development to occur. Developers don’t build arterials and they don’t pay for existing ones to be upgraded. I have already heard of some pretty scary numbers about how the council/AT might need to invest in the road network to enable the proposed greenfield development in the south.
it is true in the case of subdivisions, so I guess we’re both right Matt 😉
Which is exactly what I was getting at.
And in any case, if the developers are doing all the heavy lifting now (Yeah Right), how come we have developers blaming council for not having their infrastructure ready for them to intensify their land?
We already know as Matt points out that developers historically have paid and still now pay almost nothing towards the true “external” costs of their development – they expect everyone else to pick up the tab for the arterial roads, power, gas, water and sewers that magically connect to their land.
All they really do is put the infrastructure in the land they own, not any elses land.
Even now with development contributions (which almost invariably end up paying for turning the bare land in the the subdivision into usable parks and green spaces and little else), they don’t cover a fraction of the true costs of turning a bare patch of land into more sprawl.
“And in any case, if the developers are doing all the heavy lifting now (Yeah Right), how come we have developers blaming council for not having their infrastructure ready for them to intensify their land?”
There is also a lot of noise from groups like the Property Council and so on – wowing that they fight extortionate development contribution requirements from Councils. From the noises of Central Government on such matters, they are succeeding. The cost of sprawl will fall largely on ratepayers, have no worry.
That’s true Greg but (for better or worse) the Unitary plan is not an infrastructure plan. It just regulates land use and development.
Auckland Council copped a lot of criticism for using high growth projections for the Unitary Plan and medium growth projections in infrastructure plans. Given that overestimating zoning requirements has little risk but overestimating infrastructure requirements carries huge financial risk it was probably wise to use the more conservative estimates when planning infrastructure.
Though of course some of the criticism for the lack of cohesion between the Unitary Plan and infrastructure planing is justified, and land use planning and infrastructure planning should be closer tied.
“land use planning and infrastructure planning should be closer tied.”
I’d go one step further and say that “land use planning and infrastructure planning should be intimately tied together.”
Very well put Frank especially point 5. People seem to be very confused about what the UP does.
You even still hear people talking about being “forced” by the UP to leave their homes when there are no such powers. The only way (especially older) people could see their residence as financially untenable is if there are huge rate rises. If property prices in inner suburbs keep soaring then it is even more likely that their rates will rise and they will need to relocate.
The best way to slow the rise of prices in the inner suburbs is to intensify and increase the number of dwellings in those areas. Sprawl only provides cheap housing on the peripharies. Even in Houston and Atlanta, inner suburbs are still expensive and out of reach of the average home buyer.
Interestingly in Houston (not sure about Atlanta) the inner suburbs are pretty dense mostly with recent development. Auckland probably won’t be as fortunate because the inner suburbs are already very rich (unlike most US urban areas) and they’ll find a way to keep the neighbourhoods as they like them. Oh and lets not forget the heritage army that won’t let areas like Ponsonby change.
I agree with Frank McCrae that we most certainly should zone land for very high growth. I myself would prefer to allow any sort of development on any piece of land (that means repealing the MUL) as long as it keeps with the character of the neighbourhood (no factories in the middle of residential neighbourhood). In other words, common sense though I guess you’ll have to put it in planners language to keep them happy.
Houston is certainly heading in that direction but I think with almost as much opposition as in Auckland:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Plan-could-alter-housing-density-outside-Loop-2437503.php
http://www.chron.com/business/article/City-proposal-would-allow-higher-density-housing-2308796.php
http://www.law360.com/articles/435955/houston-eyes-more-housing-projects-with-code-change
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Fearing-density-residents-cheer-proposed-4454736.php
I agree with you 100% on the MUL and density rules. Land use zoning is a different matter and I think Houston has it all wrong where they dont have land use zoning but they do have exclusionary zoning.
All we need is a statutory design guidelines to promote good quality developments, not arbitrary rules based on people’s opinions now but which will affect housing development for 30 years. 30 years ago noone wnated to live in Grey Lynn/Ponsonby, so how can we now guess what the next desirable area will be? Let the market decide but through a true free market.
Houston also allows private development land covenants to be enforced by the local body at tax payer expense, which for me as a lawyer is bizarre. In NZ they must be enforced privately which means after 10 years or so noone bothers. They also allow restrictive zoning to be imposed where it does not exist by vote of a majority. Just crazy stuff, though maybe not so different from what is happening in Auckland with the UP maybe?
Auckland grew 1.4% per annum which is the expected average no? Also with 23,000 births in Auckland last year the census figures seem low.
Maybe it’s because the death rate is increasing while the birth rate is holding fairly nuetral.
I think the regional results will paint a much more detailed and interesting picture.
I thought this put it into context:
Massey University sociologist Paul Spoonley said the previous seven years were not a reliable guide for Auckland’s next 30 years because the number of people leaving the country had reached record highs during this period.
“And Auckland has more migrants, higher fertility and the ageing of the population isn’t as significant as it is in other parts of the country.”
Sounds like abuse of statistics when Maurice and other politicians are using figures for growth across the entire country as justification for avoiding spending money on rail in Auckland. How exactly is the decline in population in Southland or Westland, supposed to affect PT demand in Auckland?
I thought the more interesting news was the strong urbanisation in Auckland Central.
This means that Auckland Central electorate is now the 9th largest ‘city’ in the whole country, all on its own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_New_Zealand. Kind of gives the lie to the idea that there isn’t any desire for urban living in NZ…
I find it hard to square the headline number of 4.2 million in this press release with the ‘population clock’ here: http://stats.govt.nz/ which indicates an estimated population of over 200,000 more. Where did all those people disappear to on census night? The definitions of terms linked to on this page: http://stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/population_clock.aspx don’t give any obvious reason why there would be such a large disparity. Can anyone who understands this better than me shed any light? I really should know better than I do what the explanation is – it just seems like a very large disparity.
Those 200,000 include people who didn’t fill out a census form, or who did but didn’t say whether they were usually resident, or who normally live in New Zealand but were temporarily visiting another country on census night. The population clock is also as of today, so it includes the 7 months of population growth since the census was held.
Population now is 1,319,141 from my calcs. At 1.4% compound growth we are looking at 2,001,874 in 30 years, or 700,000 new people, and that ignores the people missed.
Still 700,000 people we need to house and make sure the market is there for jobs etc etc etc and that is still a daunting task
Agreed, that was the point that I was trying to make. That even though these are the most conservative growth figures possible they suggest 700k new people, or more than half as many again at current rates.
And what has the national government done to reverse (or reduce) the exodus of kiwis to Australia? Nothing. They have absolutely no economic credentials, and are totally adrift of ideas.
“Hunua (which includes East Tamaki and Pukekohe)”
Does the Hunua electorate really include East Tamaki? The NZ Paliament website indicates otherwise.
Part of East Tamaki (loose term anyway) but more Flat Bush and Ormiston.