Several recent reports and articles have discussed trends in migration and its impacts on New Zealand.

In terms of trends, net migration is at a 10-year high. The recent surge in net migration trends is shown below.

Net migration

The simple reason advanced for the positive net migration trend is that our economy is doing relatively well compared to most of the countries with whom we compete for skilled labour. This is both 1) reducing the number of kiwis departing these shores and 2) attracting more people from elsewhere to come live/work here (some of whom will of course be NZers). Put simply, less out and more in = higher net gain. Trends in long term departures and arrivals are illustrated below.

Arrivals and departures

So what might be the impacts of higher net migration?

Usefully, the people at NZIER have been researching the impacts of migration on New Zealand’s economic performance. They find that for every 40,000 additional net migrants, our GDP per capita increases by approximately $400 p.a. Why? Well, there are apparently a number of microeconomic channels through which migration contributes to economic output, specifically:

  • They provide firms with new skills
  • They increase innovation and entrepreneurship
  • NZ businesses benefit from greater scale and competitiveness
  • They increase returns from public investment

The general message is fairly simple: Migrants increase the diversity and scale of our labour market and firms, while also increasing the returns on public investment (which typically have relatively fixed costs, such as infrastructure and institutions). It’s worth pointing out, however, that only the first two economic channels listed above are actually specifically linked to migration. The last two microeconomic channels are pure economies of scale, which would also result from a higher domestic fertility rate.

Which brings me nicely to another (potential) benefit from migration: Greater diversity in potential partners.

I know this sounds flakey, but I’ve just recently been struck by how many of my NZ friends (including several of my fellow bloggers) are partnered up with people of foreign origin. Which raises an interesting proposition: Is it possible that higher rates of net migration have an indirect impact on domestic fertility rates? I’ve been asking my mates but they’re a bit coy on the topic. But it seems reasonable to suggest that if migrants introduce diversity/specialisation into the labour market then perhaps they do the same for the “partner market”.

I guess the net effect depends not only on the quality of the match, but also migrants’ relative preferences for making babies compared to the existing NZ population (to which they are added). This is an area that may warrant further NZ-specific research (NB: The World Bank has analysed migration and fertility impacts in this paper. The key finding appears to be that migration reduces home country fertility and increases destination country fertility, as I would expect. However the World Bank appear to attribute this to simple differences in preferences, rather than better matching).

Are there negative impacts from migration?

The most obvious is the additional demand for housing that results during times of high migration, which could in turn lead to higher property price inflation and ultimately higher interest rates. This will not only curb domestic demand across the economy, but it will also tend to inflate the currency and undermine NZ’s export competitiveness. This issue is all the more relevant in the Christchurch context and, in my opinion, supports the Reserve Bank’s decision to implement loan-value requirements as a temporary curb on housing demand in these relatively exceptional circumstances.

Some people suggest that higher net migration might reduce social cohesion, although specific details on exactly what is meant by social cohesion are difficult to come by.

Data from StatisticsNZ (as discussed here on KiwiBlog) suggests people of Asian ethnicity in New Zealand have much lower rates of criminal offending than the general population, while the opposite is true of Pasfika ethnicity. However, this difference may be attributable to differences in the relative incomes of these two migrant groups.

I can’t help but wonder that if 1) more kiwis are staying here and/or returning from overseas (where approximately 1 million currently reside) and 2) kiwis who hook up with migrants are generally happier than they would be otherwise, then it seems possible that current trends will actually bring people/families together and thereby supports greater “cohesion”. So ultimately I think this supposed “negative” effect of migration is likely to be over-stated and that, on balance, migration has net positive impacts for NZ’s socio-economic performance.

So what should we expect from future trends in migration?

Well, if the results of this international survey are anything to go by then NZ can expect to see positive net migration numbers for some time. The survey ranked New Zealand ranked fifth overall for preferred destination and subsequently estimated that our population would increase to over 9 million in the event that everyone who wanted to migrate here was able to do so. Of course, the relative performance of NZ’s economy will be the main determinant of whether current rates of migration are sustained.

All I hope is that we start to get people like Emma Watson and/or Hayley Williams migrating here to vie for my affections. Sweet.

Share this

75 comments

  1. Under a severe climate change scenario NZ could end up with much much higher immigration. Especially as it seems we are generally less affected than other nearby areas like Australia and the islands.

    1. Climate change is one factor but by far the biggest factor which could cause NZ to be swamped in the near future is resource constraints.

      I worry that NZ is using immigration as a tool to create quick economic growth (which many stagnant countries have done in the past) but now that our economy is going well we won’t be able to slow this down to let some of the imbalances correct themselves (eg housing prices).

      Isn’t it time now for our economy to use creative means to create long term growth rather these short term measures that may cause far more damage in the future?

      1. The last analysis of NZ’s sustainable population limit that I saw put it at 6 million. But that was based on current technologies, which would of course improve over time. So my hunch is anything up to 10 million would be fairly doable, provided we started to plan now.

        1. We’d need to totally change the way our dairy industry works to do that though

          Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says we can’t sustain our waterways now with the number of dairy cows we have, so if we increased population we have to decrease the number of cows (or change the way we manage them) to cope.

          And that assumes that any climate induced changed results in the same (or not much higher) level of rainfall, if the rainfall becomes lower (or more likely) “more lumpy” – i.e. more droughts, more floods, more unpredicability,
          Then the whole model may not work and it falls on its ear.

        2. New Zealand is in the ballpark, area wise, of Italy (60 million) or Poland (38 million). Or, looking at island nations, we are larger than the UK (64 million). And we are 70% of the size of Japan, but we only have 3% of the population. 67% of Japan is forested vs 32% of New Zealand.

          This is not to make any claims around sustainability, but we have a huge headroom as far as population density goes, looking at it from the outside. And I don’t think that we should rest on our laurels around the relative sustainability of our lifestyle. 10 million living largely in suburbia is probably not a sensible goal.

          Population density will be a huge issue in the future too. Java in Indonesia has a population of 143 million, the same as Russia. If we look for a country with an equivalent land area and a westernised human geography we get Greece, at 11 million. Geopolitics in the 21st century are going to be driven to a significant degree by population pressure. This is already playing out between Australia and Indonesia. All politics aside (I am far from anti-immigration), for Australia to be asking Indonesia to absorb ‘excess’ refugees with a straight face is almost incomprehensible to Indonesians.

          To step away from that can of worms, it is important that NZ does have an internal debate over sustainability and population. It is not just about our own needs, but such debate will have echoes and ramifications for our wider place in this world. It may seem goofy talking about dairy farming sustainability and climate change in terms of global geopolitics, but with our neighbour falling into a kind of hysteria driven nationalistic debate over a relatively minor issue, being able to have a growth philosophy based on sound principals seems like good insurance.

    2. Fred, as the climate gradually changes, won’t migrants be more inclined to head towards the warmer equatorial regions?

  2. However, the key thing is not to accept all immigrants, but to accept skilled immigrants. This is a fundamental flaw NZ has at the moment. For example, Importing bus drivers from overseas makes no sense when we do have over 6 percent unemployment here.

    What l find strange is, unlike in the EU, China and Switzerland, the ability of an immigrant to resettle the rest of their families to NZ just because they were accepted to live in NZ.

    Additionally, we a sold the lines that we have an aging population so need more immigrants to top up the NZ pension fund, yet 1/3 of new immigrants permited to live here are over 50 years old. Guess what, they become entitled to our superannuation after contributing little or nothing into it in the first place.

    On the surface ‘carte blanche’ immigration is sold well to joe public. But when you look into the type of immigrants we are allowing, we have alot of fine tuning to go to make it successful for NZ. Both National and Labour Govts have not sorted out this issue.

    1. P.s. Can you provide a reference for your claim that 1/3 of our migrants are over the age of 50? That’s not something I was aware of.

      1. I’ve very quickly pulled out some data from SNZ, and it looks to be more like 10% of permanent and long term arrivals are over 50.

    2. Jon, there is the ability to bring your parents to NZ under family reunification categories – but that is now allowed only where the “centre of gravity” of the immediate family is in NZ.
      It used to be even a tenuous link was enough. But it has been toughened to only where the centre of gravity exists and in NZ.

      For a one child Chinese immigrant, that is an easy test to pass, for other ethnic groups with lots of children or siblings some not in NZ, not so easy.

      So, in theory 1 Chinese migrant family where both children are 1 child policy children could bring both their parents to NZ. Meaning 4 more migrants for the price of the initial 2+kids.

      Can’t comment on the pension or age bands of migrants, but I understood you had to have worked (i.e. paid income tax) in NZ for a number of year in the 10 years before your age 65 retirement, so if you are a parent of a recent migrant who has never worked in NZ then your pension rights should be denied as you have not contributed enough to earn one.
      This does also penalise family businesses where they all work in the business but don’t pay a formal wage to family members.

      1. I never can understand this “buy one get two in for free” policy. It’s like importing older people to cost the country more money in healthcare and gold cards. Anyway else seen the amount of gold card usage by people who cant string together two English words on the buses and trains?

    3. As someone who entered NZ at age 27, using the skills shortage list, as an engineer (and has worked as an engineer since coming here), I am not happy about this the nebulous concept that immigrants should be “more skilled, younger and drive fewer buses”.

      And anyway, in quite a few cases of the “immigrant turned taxi driver / bus driver” this seems a case of skilled migrants being refused employment because they are from, say India, and the employer doesn’t want an Indian… hearsay only, but seems likely that there’s a good few cases of that.

      1. Yes but it does make sense to a point look at half of the ticket inspectors they can’t even understand basic English like “the eftpos machine doesn’t work” somehow they translated that to “the machine won’t take my hop card” and I have to explain sometimes several times. Where as if the inspector is a kiwi or even aussie they fully understand. In positions where they serve kiwis they shouldn’t be there, if they are nz born indian/Chinese etc then that’s great, it’s not a racial thing.

        1. That isn’t even an issue of race though. Fluent english is a core competency in a service role

        2. Peter

          Even Aussies can understand! I love it. If you want to buy a ticket to Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu I might struggle but can usually understand the missing vowels and funny words. So please put me on your buses.

        3. Transdev seem not to care about people speaking/understanding English though, many ticket inspectors and sometimes the TM’s are just impossible to communicate with. I’ve noticed it with NZBus too though, i’ve seen people come on and ask “hey, do you go to symonds street”, they reply “whats tha… NO!”, and the person leaves, next minute bus turns into symonds street as part of its normal route, seen this many times.

    4. We do give give priority to skilled immigrants. Of course, “skilled” isn’t exactly specific to work – how did you think Irene van Dyk got New Zealand residency?

  3. We also need a long term regional development policy to complement this to encourage development of all regions.
    Otherwise we will end up with massive growth in Auckland, while the rest of NZ continues to drain people (either overseas or to Auckland).

    A South Pacific “London Effect” if you will. Which is not a healthy state for the economy overall. As it will lead to chronic economic distortions.

    A Holiday Highway to Northland is not in anyway shape or form a long term regional development policy. We need something way better than that, that works for all regions.

    We can’t make migrants live outside Auckland longer term (they used to take away residency points if you wanted to live in Auckland, but thats not a long term regional policy either more of a quick fix and hope that once migrants settle outside Auckland they’ll stay there).

    1. Auckland has dominated NZ that way for a century. There’s early 20th century newspaper cartoons showing Auckland as this big dog looming over a passel of small puppies, labelled with the names of other NZ towns… sadly I can’t find it online.

      And while there may arguably be “economic effects” of one mega-city, calling them “distortions” is just saying “I don’t like it all in one place”. That may be fair enough, but doesn’t have anything to do with reality, in my mind. Cities are very efficient machines, and many of their efficiencies, especially the economic ones, actually prosper with size and density better than dispersion. Critical mass in NZ only exists in one place at the moment, and to try and undermine that – which seems to be the goal of some of our current government in the woeful way they treat Auckland’s wishes, is just pure folly.

      1. Being from Canterbury, I want Christchurch to be a strong vibrant place. I think I have articulated this several times. But to be clear I don’t want to bash or undermine Auckland. My vision/hope is that several towns, cities and regions in NZ grow at the same rate as Auckland. So in absolute terms Auckland grows the fastest, it remains the biggest city. But in relative terms some other centres grow just as quickly. Alain Bertaud argues this is the typical growth pattern within a country/large region.

        Someone here recently showed that since 1990 Canterbury and Auckland had the same growth rate. I think regional development is best driven from bottom up processes starting from the actual communities, cities and regions themselves rather than top down processes from Wellington.

      2. Max Auckland as the St Bernard lording it over the rest of the NZ puppies is fine

        – as long as this is the concious decision central and local governments to have this – **and more to the point** – as long as both ensure that the resources to support that decision are put in place for the benefit of NZ Inc as a whole.

        Right now, there is a de-facto regional development policy of let each region fight it out – but there is no level playing field when it comes to local and central government funding for each region and it has been like that for some time now.
        This is why Auckland has decades if not a century or more of “Catch up” to do with regards basic infrastructure and why we have to go cap in hand to the Government of day for a rail link, harbour bridge or whatever the latest bauble we have been promised many times over and yet have we also suffer the fact that more often than not it has been yanked away from us before it becomes reality multiple times.

        It is why we have crap cycle prioritisation now and a crap rail network up to now and road and motorway networks that don’t deliver anything but severance where-ever they go.

        So we have a belated attempt to play catch up – except NZ Inc is in now a battle with other bigger cities for the same resources and people talent, so we have to realise that NZ and Auckland are the little puppies on the block, compared to the massive dogs around the rest of the world.

        I’d also point out that a city doesn’t stand on it own – its needs the support of the regions for food if nothing else. I view Auckland as a multi-legged foot-stool – you can’t just have 1 leg on such a stool and expect it to balanced, and the more legs you have on your stool – to a point- the better.
        A 2-3 million population Auckland won’t be able to compete with many of our competitor cities in the Pacific rim (or Australia) – no matter how bigger we get, and NZ as country will end up all the weaker for trying to do that.

        Thats why a regional development policy of having multiple centres able to support the main one is better all round than having some giant (for NZ) mega-city, which amounts to nothing much in the wider scheme of things.
        Yes having a (relative to others) “mega city” causes more than an “economic effect” and that is why I say its a distortion to put all your eggs in one basket and not have a regional development policy to ensure the eggs are spread around a little.

        1. But its not really a competition between regions because all the purse strings (especially transport wise) are held by central government. If more money was given back to local governments (on a per capita basis) to spend as the region saw fit, then that would be more of a competition – now we really have a centrally planned transport system with the government favouring policies that promote motorways and sprawl.

          What could the government do to promote the regions? Southland offered zero fees at SIT and still it cant retain people who invariably head to the big cities. The fact is rural economies need less and less people as the work on farms is increasingly mechanised and automated. You are then left with service industries which can be done much more efficiently at the economies of scale of cities with all the benefits of agglomeration.

          One way would be to bring back protectionist policies to recreate some of the industrial base of the past – this would allow us to add value to the raw primary industry products we produce. Without the protectionism we could never compete with low wage economies (even though real wages have hardly risen since the 1980s). Anyway with how far we are down the globalised free trade path that would be impossible to do without massive sanctions.

          We could invest in much better education to make us very highly skilled and so attractive for industry (like Germany and Scandinavia have) – make tertiary education in useful things like science, medicine and engineering free (but not non-productive stuff like law or humanities). Then push that industry out to the provinces. However, I dont think we have the tax base for free education after all the tax cuts on high income earners.

          So your options are to subsidise the regions or penalise the cities.

        2. “We could invest in much better education to make us very highly skilled and so attractive for industry”

          That alone would be a false investment, because those highly educated professionals have massive international market value, and can just leave. The country needs to be attractive for them to stay. Auckland is one way of making them stay. Living in a cool, happening, modern city (and that includes walking, cycling, public transport and quality apartments) is one of the key things people look for when they literally have the “world wide open” to them.

          To stiff them by giving us only motorways and sprawl-centric detached houses (or worse, tell them to work in Taupo or Dunedin) is to lose them to other countries.

        3. You know we have a large young population with hefty student loans, NZ Inc should have policies to encourage them to stay in NZ, and work in the regions or whatever appropriate as a way to “work off” their student loan. Thats good for the country and the individual. We used to do exactly that 60 years ago.

          A large reason why skilled people bugger off overseas is to avoid paying these student loans off straight away with low paid jobs in NZ – so they go – either to earn more money to pay them back quicker than they’d manage in NZ, and so they can eventually come back with a deposit to buy a house in NZ when they want to settle down/have kids etc, or simply to give them a choice as to when and how they pay it back.

          If we do nothing as we do now then we lose them effectively forever (or for most of their tax paying/productive life), and we have invested heavily as a country in their education and then given them huge loans to sutdy to boot. So we’re in the hole big time already and we let them bugger off without thinking through the problem and come up with solutions?

          As for Max’s comment “To stiff them by giving us only motorways and sprawl-centric detached houses” yep agreed we need a better housing policy and transport policy, and while you’re at it a regional development policy too.

          “or worse, tell them to work in Taupo or Dunedin”
          Well we don’t do that now – we say to them if you want to live outside Auckland here’s 10 bonus points to your residency – hardly forcing is it?

          We want migrants to commit to NZ as well NZ committing to the migrants – its a two-way street not a one way “gimme gimme gimme” from the Migrant to the country.

          We must commit to ensuring the students we pay good money to educate stick around and contribute in some way instead of simply leaving here for greener pastures – some never to return (or repay their loans). A big loss to NZ in all ways.
          Got a problem with that?

    2. How do you stop it? Why fight something that is inevitable and what people want?

      I have lived in three non-Anglophone countries as an expat (France, Czech Republic, Romania). In France I lived in Rouen and Caen, small cities with little expat life. I didnt enjoy it very much and left quite quickly.

      I lived in Prague and Bucharest which both have expat communities (Prague obviously exponentially bigger than Bucharest) and it was great. I had friends from all over the world but the majority were Anglophone (or Northern European – the next best thing language wise).

      The fact is that the first generation will always ghettoise themselves linguistically. My children would have been comfortable in Czech or Romanian culture but I would never have felt that – even with good language skills (and my Romanian is pretty good). There were the odd expat who lived in Brno, or Pardubice or Timisoara or Brasov and they definitely integrated more. But they were also a tiny minority and a lot actually ended up moving to the capital eventually because the opportunities were so much better.

      Leave immigrants to live where they want and make their lives more tolerable in the new, weird culture they find themselves in. Their children are the really valuable resource that NZ will thrive off.

    3. I’ve said this many times before but the regions themselves need to reinvent themselves, into ‘mini cities’ if you like. Places like Whangarei need inner town density to bring the places alive and make them attractive to people. Add in good PT and active modes and you’ve got yourself a place people will flock to. Sprawled out large towns have no attraction.

  4. Greg N is right. We can’t stop migrants coming to Auckland, but we could give them incentives in terms of tax/rates breaks to set up businesses in the regions. If it was made worthwhile financially my guess is they would be happy to choose Gisborne over Auckland.

    1. Good thinking Greg N, but then you might have to put in the sort of infrastructure that makes regional cities vaguely habitable elsewhere in the world; like regional rail connections. But, in this motophiliac society, that would be impossible, you can have a four lane motorway any day but try and do something that makes regional centres palatable to those other than motor heads, well you’d have to be off your rocker.

    2. The points system for migrants does give 10 points if they plan to work outside the Auckland region (you need 100 points to get on the shortlist)

  5. > I’ve just recently been struck by how many of my NZ friends (including several of my fellow bloggers) are partnered up with people of foreign origin

    What blogging immigrants with Kiwi partners like myself? 😉

  6. In my social circles, the fact that my partner is a born-and-bred Aucklander makes her a minority. I’m from Wellington, most of my friends are from Tehran or Dublin or places equally far afield.

  7. Curious to know does Nz have per country immigrate ceiling caps like the United States? Encourages more diversity and more networks around the world than just china/ India.

    1. It used to – to discourage Chinese immigration, which was a big fear as far back as late 19th century. But the remaining systems to enforce that were canned several decades ago. Current systems of admission based on age, employment history/employment offers in NZ, education level and whether you have relatives here. Still some indirect bias towards western countries as those tend to be easier to get your credentials accepted, but overall, no country or race bias.

        1. I am not saying the proposal NEEDS to be biased. But it was historically often used that way, and can be again if implemented. As the example of multi-lingual Auckland shows, it is arguably not needed at all.

  8. Immigration is one of the reasons I love Auckland. I’m an immigrant (from the US), as is my fiance (from Australia), but also I love the varied food here, and I feel like I can experience so many different cultures by just heading to different areas of the city. Of course, I’m also an ESL teacher so immigration is great for my job. Oddly enough though, even with the growth in immigration, my sector hasn’t been doing very well compared to about ten years ago.

  9. I think there is a strong argument for using immigration to keep a stable population level or modest growth. The problem occurs when a government uses immigration to push growth in GDP to give the impression we are getting richer when in fact GDP per person can decline. In the past governments of both types have used it as a means to keep wages low. Can’t get locals to prune your grapes because you dont want to pay enough to compensate for back breaking work, rural living and only earning part of the year. No worries we won’t require market forces to apply through increased wages, we will bring in people from places even poorer than here to keep the wage low. Same goes in the dairy industry. Similarly is the savings rate too low? Well lets just import people with more than $2million. Cant be bothered training someone and waiting a few years for your business to grow? No need, we will put that job on the skills list! The flip side is that people in some of the rural provinces miss out on opportunities that their grand parents had to migrate within NZ. In my view we need to make sure that the benefits of immigration are spread around the country and that regional development be addressed as the market has well and truly failed some areas.

    1. But in a true free market why shouldnt NZ workers compete with immigrants? After all that is how the neoliberal heaven of the USA has kept its standard of living so high since the 1970s (at least for the rich minority) by keeping services cheap through lower wages – at least partly caused by constant immigration (much of it illegal of course).

      The only reason workers are paid so much in the rich world is because the market is distorted by immigration controls. In the free market “paradise” neoliberals are heading us down, I assume those controls would be removed.

      I dont agree with that approach at all but it is the logical extension of the neoliberal philosophy. Check out chapter 3 of (Cambridge professor of economics) Ha-Joon Chang’s “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html).

      1. I haven’t read his book yet but I will. Does he mention that one of the few countries in recent history to climb to 1st world status is his birth country. South Korea got there by ignoring all the current IMF/World Bank free market theory and foreign investment stuff and focussed on import substitution and government incentives and industrial planning. The ideologues dont tell you that! As for my views I find it decidedly unjust that in times of high unemployment we are told the free market dictates low wages but it times of skill shortages the government ensures the market doesn’t allow for expected wage rises. That is fine if your goal is international convergence. But if your goal is raising local living standards not so great. And we wonder why we have inequality in NZ.

        1. Yes he discusses that a lot and also uses Singapore as an example of another country that has bucked the free market trend (chapter 12 I believe). The Singapore government has been very active in steering the economy the way they wanted and havent left things up to the free market. 80% of housing in Singapore is also government owned.

          After reading that book you won’t wonder any longer! I thoroughly recommend it. I would also recommend the documentary “Inequality for All” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2215151/). Mostly interviews with Robert Reich, Secretary for Labor under Clinton.

          “That is fine if your goal is international convergence. But if your goal is raising local living standards not so great.” – I agree

        2. Greg N – I agree. A race to the bottom is exactly what I would call it. At least to the bottom for the middle class, further up the ladder for the top 10%.

          NZ is doing very “well” in that particular race.

    1. We can manage migration (internal and external) better with good regional development policies.
      As I recall for Auckland those 3 are 1/3rd each so managing 2 of the 3 (migration – internal/external) better we can control 2/3rds of the problem.

      And if nearly everyone returning/coming from overseas didn’t end up Auckland then we’d have no major issues with what overseas immigration was doing (up/down/sideways) to the population would we?

      1. That’s not the case for Auckland – our internal migration was negative over 1996-2006, and probably for 2006-2013 too. 2/3rds of our growth comes from “natural increase”, births minus deaths. The rest is net migration, which is our net international immigration, minus the (net) number who are moving from Auckland to other parts of NZ.

        1. Historically that may be right.

          But 2006 was 7 years ago, we had a lot of shake ups in NZ since then (GFC, Quakes etc).
          The figures for Census 2013 aren’t released yet to show the breakdown for population increase for 2006-13 by type e.g. Internal Migration versus external versus natural.

          Immigration (especially to/from Australia) is cyclical, it can turn very quickly (up and down), so even when the Government keeps the overall inward flows constant – the flow in/out of Aus can easily overwhelm that flow.
          Those graphs show that trend turning recently and 3,000 PLTs “net” a month means up to 36,000 more people a year in NZ.

          I’d bet a large portion of incoming PLTs are mainly fetching up in Auckland and the large number of people no longer leaving NZ are also fetching up in Auckland too.
          Witness the large migration from Christchurch post 2011 quake – many of them ended up in Auckland, some of that showed up in the census figures released

          These people (and more) may go back to Christchurch longer term, but they’re here now.
          Internal pressures – both natural and internal migration are pretty high now.
          And thats why in part there is such an acknowledged housing shortage in the Auckland Region.

          And if the Australian Government continues on its quest to make life more difficult for NZ residents living in AUS as it seems to be now, by now proposing denying those who arrived before 2001 the same benefits as Australian Citizens like those who arrived after 2001, that may drive even more people back from AUS too, making that flow even larger. And once they return, they’re unlikely to go back to AUS.

  10. Surely the main reason our immigrants have higher fertility than the average population is because they are younger? But I also wonder if some of our migrants (or returning NZers who come back with migrant partners) are specifically coming here to have children, because NZ is seen as a good place to bring them up. I certainly know quite a few NZers who have travelled extensively, met their partner overseas, and then either came home (or are thinking of coming home) because they want to bring their kids up here. Lots of people might also want their children to be born here so they get NZ citizenship. It’s not necessarily as useful as an EU passport, or American citizenship, but it’s not bad…

    1. It is exactly what we did. We left London specifically to have children because while London is a great place to live you really wouldn’t want to have to raise your kids there. Everything is difficult there and expensive for kids and then you have the problem of inner city schools which leaves you with having to pay for private education. Around the time we left two other couples we knew came back to have kids.

    2. just to clarify that if you become pregnant during a work visa (not residency) they kick you out. There’s no moving here to have a kid if first you don’t have skills, jobs, health, money, time, age.

  11. Stu, I suggest you do some reading as far as technology and sustainability, I have read quite a number of reports on it and all have agreed that the most common fallacy is that technology can solve problem of declining resources; it is simply not true and is generally the opposite.

    I would like to see the report that outlines the 6 million population limit for NZ for my own interest; could you send the link? A similar report that I did read some time ago was commissioned by the UK government (it was by from the University of Leeds if I remember rightly?) which stated that without all fossil fuels the UK could only sustain around 1.5 million people. This report was quickly classified so it is impossible to find any links to it now.

    Although we are some time off that scenario and we are in much better position than the UK I think both of your figures are possibly a little optimistic looking out to the next 50-100 years.

    1. England alone already had more than 1.5 million people living in it before Julius Caesar invaded. Well over 5 million at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (~1750ish). That report sounds pretty implausible.

    2. I don’t remember claiming that technology could solve the issue of “declining resources” (I presume you mean non-renewable?).

      I guess, though, that we define “sustainability” in different ways. My time horizon is more at the 50-100 year mark. Call me short sighted if you will, but I struggle to think what the world may be like beyond that point.

  12. I wish I could find that report now but it was 7-8 years ago. The population difference was from pre to post industrilization was point out and the reduced number was largely down to forest destruction within that time. Without the forests there will be barely enough wood for that population to burn never mind other uses – which will not be a problem in NZ.

  13. If you want to get migrants to the regions, the regions need to reinvent themselves and do the attracting. Start mining now.

  14. if you want regions to attract migrants you have to change the way the regions work. The corporate war for talent is another academic concept that unfortunately has allowed itself to become misinterpreted. Talent today choose vibrant cities where they can develop themselves. Talent dont look for plot of land to buy a house, two cars and settle down with a family. We need to understand that this has changed. think of maslows old pyramide. People, talent look for the top piece today, self development, not the two bottom pieces of safety and shelter. The bottom two pieces are already seen as taken for granted. And social the third piece isnt inviting the neighbour for a BBQ anymore. its about a cultural intercation of ideas and a vibrant cityscape that allows people to stroll between subgroups.
    We cant think that the ideals of the post war generation defines how our generations want to live. Steven Joyce, of New Plymouth, might want to ask himself why no asian farmer want to migrate to his old town despite it having an awesome raodnetwork cutting through the citycentre at every 25 meters and parking everywhere…

    I find farming interesting. farms is a traditional kiwi industry. our economy is agrarian.
    There has been some case studies done on for example NZ largest chicken producer Tegel. Tegel has production in Auckland, New Plymouth and Canterbury. Despite a chicken farm costing more to buy in Auckland (most chicken farms are found near Helensville) the migrants chose to purchase their farm here. This because they have access to services they deem important. New Plymouth being much cheaper cant attract or retain people, even overseas farmers in the way rural Auckland can.
    The Asian immigrants that have bought poultry farms have almost to a man bought them in Auckland. today close to 20% of the poultry farms are owned by chinese/malaysian/korean farmers. these are asian farmers, the category youd expect to be happy to move to rural NZ, but they just find the places to quiet and the services to few and far between. (So far there is small evidence that the in recent times growing group of filipino agricultural migrants buck this trend but this hasnt been properly researched yet)

  15. Migration is a good thing if they emurse themselves into New Zealand society. The problem is many segregate themselves and some that do fill service jobs don’t have a sound level of English.

    A population of 6 million max sounds sufficient for our land mass. The UK is overpopulated and suffers with migration. Many cultures barely attempt to confirm to the UKs way of life.

  16. Several recent reports and articles have discussed trends in migration and its impacts on New Zealand.

    For example the Savings Working Group
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

    and the Australian productivity Commission
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/immigration-link-to-economic-growth-yet-to-be-proven-says-productivity-commission/story-fn9hm1gu-1226179973978

    The simple reason advanced for the positive net migration trend is that our economy is doing relatively well compared to most of the countries with whom we compete for skilled labour.

    Immigration creates it’s own demand (e.g the construction sector has grown dramatically since 2002). Bob Birrell discusses this in relation to Melbourne here:
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-yarra-monster-is-killing-us-20100822-13apt.html
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Melbourne%3A+a+Parasite+city%3F-a0242963663

    Some people suggest that higher net migration might reduce social cohesion, although specific details on exactly what is meant by social cohesion are difficult to come by.
    Seek and ye shall find
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  17. Usefully, the people at NZIER have been researching the impacts of migration on New Zealand’s economic performance
    No they haven’t they have been cherry picking research which supports their case (more like advocacy to give legitimacy to people servicing industry than research).

    1. NZIER found migration increases GDP/capita. That view is supported by the NY Times article you linked to, which states “a parallel line of emerging research suggests it [ethnic diversity] can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.”

      Putnam found ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust. Your mistake is to equate higher net migration with increased ethnic diversity. Higher net migration could be caused by fewer kiwis departing and/or more kiwis coming home from overseas. The degree to which higher net migration contributes to greater ethnic diversity depends on the proportion of non-kiwi migrants.

  18. The simple reason advanced for the positive net migration trend is that our economy is doing relatively well compared to most of the countries with whom we compete for skilled labour.

    According to Longitudinal Immigration Survey: New Zealand (LisNZ) – Wave 1 the top reasons given for migrating to NZ are:
    Relaxed pace of life or lifestyle
    Climate or the clean, green environment
    A better future for my children
    Employment opportunity
    Friendly people
    Safety from crime
    Join family members
    Easy access to outdoor or sporting activities
    Educational opportunities
    Marry or live with a NZ spouse or partner
    Political stability
    Economic conditions
    To study
    Accompany family members
    Other

  19. Aspects Migrants liked most about NZ

    Climate or natural beauty or clean and green
    Friendly people or relaxed pace of life
    Can achieve desired lifestyle
    Safety from crime and violence
    Recreation and leisure activities
    Small population
    Education system or educational opportunities
    Having family here
    Political stability and freedom or lack of corruption
    Cultural diversity
    Job opportunities
    Good provision of services
    Good housing
    Lack of inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions
    Economic conditions
    Other
    None
    …..
    Funny how those praising immigration are sending NZ in a different direction.

  20. Funny that the U.K and Singapore need more migrants
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/02/immigration
    as does Singapore
    Although Singapore is ranked the third-richest country in the world, not all its citizens have benefited from its economic successes. While its super-rich parties at Pangaea, the world’s most expensive club, and sips its $26,000 cocktails, wages have only marginally increased for Singapore’s low-income groups and housing prices have reached record highs. Rogers, however, argues that limiting immigration will only worsen Singapore’s problems, “if Singapore cannot get enough labor, it will have to raise wages. Inflation will rise and Singapore might price itself out of the market over the next few years.” Drawing from historical examples, he adds that citizens in every country have always blamed immigrants for their problems.
    At the root of Singapore’s immigration policy is its worrying demographic structure. With a fertility rate of only 1.2, far below the replacement rate of 2.1 and one of the lowest in the world, Singapore will face a shrinking workforce and aging population if new immigrants are not brought in. Rogers warns that if Singapore tightens its immigration policy too much, it will become “an old age home in 10 to 20 years.” Given that more resources will then have to be expended to support the elderly, he thinks Singapore will find it “very difficult” to develop and compete with its neighboring countries.
    “Every country in history that has a backlash against foreigners,” says Rogers with air of conviction, “is going to go into decline.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidyin/2013/06/06/singapore-needs-immigrants-says-jim-rogers/
    which suggests a policy based on immigration isn’t sustainable (or the old hoary chestnut limits to growth).

  21. It’s clear why migrants choose Auckland, but I do think that there should be more visa restrictions, i.e. if you want to live in NZ, you’ll need to tough it out for a bit outside Auckland before you’ll be permitted to work there.

  22. Should people born in Auckland also be forced to tough it out in the provinces? Chairman Mao would approve and definitely did a lot of that sort of thing.

  23. the problem is the establishment political class want to continue to run NZ as a settlement colony, because that is all they know. The genuine ‘war for talent’ was lost long ago if people really don’t want to build the sort of NZ that creatives and innovators and entrepreneurs definitely want to live in. If they genuinely want to live in ex-urban acreage, they will, but it will never be why they chose to live somewhere. Does the US West Coast or the greenfields of Kent or the hills surrounding the Kanto plain also not have ex-urban farmlets, as if that was a reason to migrate?

    I had some hope for NZ when I saw the Wellington animation and how well this worked for LOTR and Avatar and so on and thought, geez, a good reason for bright young things with energy and risk taking to stay in NZ, and make Wellington into something maybe the rest of NZ will never be. CHC is becoming some sort of right wing fantasy land, an anti-city.

    But this government makes me wonder if they ever want NZ to emerge into high value add or continue as a transit lounge for those from low wealth countries to pass through on their way to others.

  24. Riccardo – non rompo mia Corleone!

    I subscribe to reality – How is NZ going to compete for high end incomers against Europe, Asia, and the US? People come to NZ or choose to stay because of the unique and relaxed lifestyle, not because of a career. Of course there are exceptions but rule of thumb is if you want to really advance your career or your income you are going to be better off doing that in a business hub and not a South Pacific backwater.

    Of course NZ has some breakthrough industries – Weta is a very good example of a Kiwi company that competes very well on the world stage. But Weta is in NZ because Peter Jackson wants to walk around in bare feet and live in a house with a back yard. I cant imagine PJ wanting Wellington to turn into a high density environment like Hong Kong – if it did I am sure he would re-locate Weta to Rarotonga.

    New Zealand is what it is – thousands of miles away from the markets. The upside of that is Kiwis get to live a great lifestyle. Our kids get to play cricket in the back yard and we are half an hour from home when most of us finish work at 5pm. That is very appealing to a lot of people who commute 2 hours+ a day on miserable public transport to spend 10-12 hours in an office before trudging home again on a train smelling of piss to a tiny box on the 4th floor. Of course the pay off is our wages are lower – What price do you put on the Kiwi lifestyle? Many would value that far above a few more $’s in the bank.

    1. Phil, I think your views on career advancement and relative income levels are relatively dated. In my profession (engineering/economist) I can get paid significantly more in NZ or Australia than I can in the UK. This was not the case 10 years ago, when the GBP:NZD was 3:1; this of course made a GBP 30k salary very attractive to most young NZers

      But now that the exchange ratio is 2:1 the same salary don’t look so flash anymore. I’ve looked into it and there’s not many ways I could get paid what I get paid now in the UK. I’d have to work in the finance sector. Moreover, the urban development activity in NZ/Australia (and indeed the wide Asia-Pacific) is significantly more career enhancing than what I saw in Europe.

      NZs in the right part of the world, and with our high dollar the salaries on offer here compete with most places.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *