New Zealand had a net loss of 103 migrants in the year to October 2011, the first annual net loss since the September 2001 year, Statistics New Zealand says.
Migration losses were dominated by permanent or long-term (PLT) departures to Australia, with the net outflow of 34,957 during the 12 months to October 2011, just below the record of 35,400 set in the year to December 2008, Stats NZ said.
"There were 84,300 PLT arrivals in the October 2011 year, up 2 percent from the October 2010 year. There were 84,400 PLT departures, up 20 percent from the previous year. This meant that there was a net loss of 100 migrants in the October 2011 year, the first annual net loss since the September 2001 year (1,700)," Statistics New Zealand said in a statement.
"Net losses were recorded between the July 1998 year and the September 2001 year. The highest net loss during this period was 13,200 in the February 2001 year. The highest net loss recorded since the PLT migration series started, in April 1921, was 43,600 people in the July 1979 year. Net losses continued throughout most of the 1980s," Stats NZ said.
"After the net loss in the September 2001 year, net migration rose substantially. New Zealand experienced a record net gain of 42,500 migrants in the May 2003 year. The most recent high was a net gain of 22,600 migrants in the January 2010 year. The net migration balance has steadily decreased since then," it said.
"New Zealand's net loss of migrants in the October 2011 year was due to a net loss of 35,000 people to Australia. This is only just below the highest recorded net loss to Australia (35,400 people in the December 2008 year). The October 2011 year figure resulted from 49,500 departures to Australia, offset by 14,500 arrivals from Australia. In both directions, most migrants were New Zealand citizens.
"There were net gains of migrants from most other countries, led by the United Kingdom (5,700), India (5,100), and China (4,600) in the October 2011 year," Stats NZ said.
Monthly
Seasonally adjusted permanent and long-term (PLT) migration figures showed a net loss of 600 migrants in October 2011. Since the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand has had a net loss of migrants in all months except August 2011, Statistics New Zealand said.
Unadjusted figures showed a net inflow of 800 migrants in October 2011, compared with 1,700 in October 2010. The main changes were:
- 600 more departures of New Zealand citizens to Australia
- 300 fewer arrivals of non-New Zealand citizens, including 400 fewer on student visas but 200 more on work visas
- 200 fewer arrivals of New Zealand citizens.
Migrants who arrived on student visas numbered 2,700 in the August to October 2011 months combined. The comparable figure between August and October 2009 was 2,600, but this increased to 3,700 in the same months of 2010. The changes were mainly driven by a rise then fall in the number of students arriving from India, Stats NZ said.
In October 2011, there were net gains of migrants from the United Kingdom (900), China (400), India (300), Germany, and Ireland (each 200). The net gain from India was half that recorded in October 2010 (600), it said.
There was a net loss of 2,700 migrants to Australia, up from 1,900 in October 2010. The latest figure is the highest net loss recorded for an October month since 1988 (2,900), Stats NZ said.
Migration to and from Christchurch since the February earthquake
Five hundred Christchurch residents moved overseas in October 2011, up from 400 in October 2010. Since the devastating earthquake on 22 February 2011, there have been 6,000 departures from Christchurch, compared with 3,700 during the same period in 2010, Stats NZ said.
Four hundred migrants arrived from overseas to settle in Christchurch in October 2011, down from 600 in October 2010. Since the February earthquake, there have been 3,200 arrivals to Christchurch, compared with 4,300 during the same period in 2010, it said.
Key’s first term vs Clark’s final term
We now have the last figures before the November 26 election of permanent/long-term departures from New Zealand to Australia and PLT arrivals from Australia to New Zealand. See them in this spreadsheet here, sheets 1 & 2. Data is sourced from Stats NZ's infoshare. See the annual net figures of PLT migration to Australia in the interactive chart below.
Between December 2008 and October 2011, 43,712 migrants moved from Australia to New Zealand permanently or long-term. That compared to 116,500 moving from NZ to Australia, giving a net departure figure to Australia of 72,788 during those 35 months.
Comparing that to the same period under the last Labour government’s final term: (note: have left out November 2008, which was the election month; The 2005 election was held in September 2005, but for comparison the 35 month block used is December 2005 to October 2008).
Between December 2005 and October 2008, 39,198 people moved from Australia to New Zealand permanently/long-term. During that time, 119,613 people left, giving net departures from NZ to Aus of 80,415 during those 35 months.
(Updates with video of Goff, Key vs Clark comparison, monthly figures, Chch numbers, Stats NZ comments, interactive chart)
Net long term migration
Select chart tabs
44 Comments
smart, young, productive, skilled workers, and contributors who pay more in tax than the services they use - out,
taxi drivers, retirees, labour orientated workers and other costs to society - in.
Will be a concern for the property market too, quickly DonKey open the doors we need to sell more apartments in the auckland cbd and more houses in howick!!
Wonder how many of the people moving to Australia included people who lived in NZ long enough to get a NZ passport?
Elley, all I have is from my personal experience. Unfortunately no one really knows the true stats. I'm mid-20's, 5th generation kiwi.
From my Decile 8 South Island High School - approx 60% of the class would be in Australia. They are all in a range of productive fields as surveyors, mine drivers, bankers, nurses, doctors, draughtsmen, helicopter pilots, builders, plumbers and teachers.
From my close friends at a South Island University Hostel - approx 50% would be offshore either Aussie, UK and some in Canada, States, Middle East, HK/Singapore. Many have honours or masters degrees. Senior executives/managers, strategy consultants, investment bankers, accountants, surveyors, teachers, bio chemists...
From my masters program - approx 80% of the NZers in the course are offshore.
All are young, highly skilled, many would be in the top tax bracket, smart individuals,
Most would absolutely love to be in New Zealand, many see no opportunity or future in New Zealand.
Mate I think you will find that they went offshore to try and earn enough to pay off their education bills!! This country is strangling itself to death with the high cost of a university education. How can we hope for our younger generations to make the country great if they can't afford to get educated here or if they have to leave just to pay for their NZ education??
Education debt is a step on the way for bankers to dominate every aspect of our lives, if you put people in debt as young adults you can keep them in debt for ever, they really will be debt slaves.
The con is that the bankers through influence over economic thinking have convinced us that debt is the way to go and is the answer for everything. The funny thing is that debt is waht they sell, in fact it is the only thing they sell, so the answer to everything is debt.
We the people need to tell our pollys that we want to take back control of the issueing of money.
As an 'immigrant' Elley, I would look to see where the new people are coming from. We don't lose the rubbish, because nobody else would want them, we just lose the good stuff. However, we are trying to attract low-paid, labour orientated workers to NZ, because NZers won't do the 'low paid jobs'. These people certainly won't be surgeons and champions of business - I can assure you of that.
Well, speaking for myself & my husband: as French immigrants with both a good degree, work experience, work ethics, and a successful IT business, we are quite confident we would be welcomed elsewhere but we choose to be in NZ.
As far as I'm concerned, one can be successful anywhere - as my grandmother has always told me, "where there's a will, there's a way". She's a very wise 101 years old woman!
It may not be perfect but no place is and I think people who idealise (or idolise?) other countries may be in for some serious disappointment. According to this, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2848160/NZ-ranks-second-best-for-business-report New Zealand is the 2nd best country out of 183 for business, can't be that bad. And there are many aspects of NZ that make it a great place to live and raise a family too. So as I've said before, nearly 10 years on we're staying put (despite the fact that the rather negative attitude and inferiority complex of NZers vs Ozzies is a bit depressing at times).
I wonder how long before Oz starts restricting this A320 load of Kiwis heading there every single day of the year ?
If Labour-Green-Winni try hards get into power and ban new roading projects, mineral exploration and tax us to prosperity I hope Air NZ have enough planes to cope with the exodus
Unlikely
They know quality when they see it.
Reality is that they have an active immigration policy and a well enough run ecconomy to usefully employ them and fulfil their asperations. They are also a bit more zenephobic than us and we are probably the most compatable nation to draw from.
It is really interesting to engage in discussion, NZr's who have left. I am frequently struck by people who would be at the bottom of our ecconomic and social heap, are really doing well over there. What I take from this is that most of our social problems would be solved by a well run ecconomy with meaningful productive work for our citizens. Lining the pockets of the top 1% of the population, trapping people in welfare dependancy and a speculation free fo all, does not add up to a well run ecconomy.
Maybe the migration to Australia is not related to who's in power, BH be nice if you put some time into exploring what government's can and cannot directly effect. We seems to have a defult setting that governments can and are responsable for everything. Maybe people move to Australia because they simply want to live in a larger country.
It's a real shame, the loss to our economy doesn't concern me greatly, the broken up famillies does. My children's friends and cousins are leaving in droves. Bright, energetic twenty somethings with heaps to offer. Often their parents end up joining them so can be closer to their kids and grandchildren.
An epic fail for the Key government given that one of his election promises was to close the gap with the Aussies.
If you listen to Key you will actually find that he thinks he has closed the gap and thus he is not a failure.
Also he has said in TV interview that you wont make any more in Aussie than you will in NZ... So he must consider all the people moving over there to be either completly stupid or totally delusional.
Anyway Key's message is dont listen to them, they're all wrong, stay in NZ, we cant have you lot moving to aussie or the property market will collapse and then what the hell have we got left?
things aren't all plain sailing in australia. many are struggling with high debts and costs. apart from the mining sector many are struggling. we lend into oz and it is definitely split. tax rates are lower here, despite comments above our government is far more stable. our exchange rate, regulation and dollar are far more advantageous. what australia has going for it is attitude. New Zealand has lost that but things will turn for the better.
FYI on Migration from NZMEA:
New Zealand’s first year of negative migration since 2001 further demonstrates the need for economic reform say the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA). A net loss of 100 migrants occurred in the October 2011 year according to Statistics New Zealand.
NZMEA Chief Executive John Walley says, “The Christchurch earthquakes have seen some 6000 leave (about a 2800 net loss compared to a gain of 600 in the same period last year); that should be seen as positive, it could have been much worse. It is worth noting that people are not moving to Wellington or Auckland, but moving offshore; that fact suggests there are worse things than earthquakes – possibly low expectations. We are simply not creating enough opportunities in New Zealand.”
“The table above demonstrates where the jobs are in the tradable sector, but a volatile exchange rate, tax imbalances and a lack of incentives for innovation are restricting investment. This in turn limits well paid jobs and economic growth.”
“These factors are the key issues for voters at the election, as this will determine whether we can keep skilled New Zealanders in the country.”
Just move around more affluent Auckland suburbs in the middle of the day. The people you will often see were not born here. That is obvious. Many of them look past employment and many others look unemployable.This is not a comment on race but the point is that they replace the ones that are leaving to head off overseas and who are largely working age and their families who we have already sunk large health and education capital into.
The ones coming in require huge investment in services to bring them up to speed or in some cases if they have come in under the category of joining up family their only use is as baby sitters while the parents both go out to work.
At the risk of using Bernard-esque exaggeration ... Australia is a property bubble built on a commodity bubble built on someone else's property bubble.
That's not to say NZ is not without problems, but people who go to Australia expecting to have them solved, will often be disappointed.
It worries me that the large number of emigrants are being replaced by Indians and Chinese. I hope this isn't a bid by the NZ government to become a multicultural society which has been declared such a failure in the UK. Mass third world immigration imposed on Brits during the last Labour government have catapulted total population figures towards 80 million making England the most densely populated country in Europe with no perceptible benefit except for providing cheap labour for greedy businesses.
Worse still for those of us who live in certain suburbs their numbers have the potential to create ghettos. I believe the Botany electorate is now well in excess of 30% who do not have English as a first language.
They seem to move only as far from Auckland Airport as "a day's good walk"
The problem is not in the numbers yet but in the tendency to aggregate in parts of Auckland. Auckland already has huge infrastructure and housing problems so we need incentives for people to either not move here or to move out.
The Government (of whatever hue) should start to realise that each new immigrant does not bring an equivalent gain in service provision and not even a gain to business activity.
Not sure if anyone has made the point... don't the sayings go something about raising the IQ of both countries... and the grass being greener on the other side of the fence...
So what is the solution then, get Winston Peters in as Prime Minister and close the borders so that no immigrants and their money are allowed to come in, and keep all those kiwis that want to do their OE at home and not allowed to experience the world.
Imagine Winny (aka whiney) as leader, then we really would be screwed...
"New Zealand’s first year of negative migration since 2001 further demonstrates the need for economic reform say the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA). "
http://www.realeconomy.co.nz/226-economic_reform_needed_to_impr.aspx
NZMEA Chief Executive John Walley says, “The Christchurch earthquakes have seen some 6000 leave (about 2800 net loss compared to a gain of 600 in the same period last year); that should be seen as positive, it could have been much worse. It is worth noting that people are not moving to Wellington or Auckland, but moving offshore; that fact suggests there are worse things than earthquakes – possibly low expectations. We are simply not creating enough opportunities in New Zealand.”
“The table in the above link demonstrates where the jobs are in the tradable sector, but a volatile exchange rate, tax imbalances and a lack of incentives for innovation are restricting investment. This in turn limits well paid jobs and economic growth.”
“These factors are the key issues for voters at the election, as this will determine whether we can keep skilled New Zealanders in the country.”
“More perspectives on how to encourage investment in the tradable sector are available at www.changenz.co.nz.”
See the table comparing a manufacturer, dairy farm and sofware firm.
And NZ's policy framework is focused on what?
Les .. If you look at the cost of renting a house and are a dis-located (or dis-placed) family from ChCh needing to re-locate, they will probably find rents are substantially lower in AU than in Auckland. Thus, economically, it is a viable alternative for a ChCh family to relocate to AU for a few years until solutions are found for ChCh
Anyone noticedthe number of mid yr graduates from Auckland uni?
lets take just the Education....1100 odd
Now lets check the ed garzzet where all the education positions are advertised, 184...nationally.
Thats just the mid yr and education....so where are these people going? well some a small proportion with do post grad, or masters....not 1/2 thu.
The rest ..waitress at a cafe or go overseas....
Should we not be long term planning for the people resources this country is going to need in the next 5 to 25 yrs, then provide traing for those careers?
Yes every thing from Uni to trade cert, to labours and factory workers....not have graduates waiting on tables, and waitesses unemployed, and the balance of graduates and waitresses have no choice but look off shore.
Wonder how many also have undergrad degrees in truely unemployable jobs - political science, art history, tourism, physical education, advanced english. And are forced to move to a qualification such as teaching which gives them a profession.
While all these subjects are useful the number graduating is simply far too many.
My girlfriend graduated from teachers college two years ago, qualifying in high school geo. 50 applications later for permanent & fixed term (maternity leave cover) across most schools in the greater Auckland region she has managed only two terms worth of work.
She's lucky enough to have become a prefered relief teacher in one of the schools she had a terms work at so has been averaging 3 days of work during this school year. She tells me the relief organiser gets constantly contacted from people off the street looking for relief work, some even offering to come in and 'obeserve' classes for no pay, trying to work they way in.
On the job front, this time last year there were scores of Geo jobs advertised, this year they are few and far between.
No plans to go overseas but not a huge amount of career prospect here for her...
ntm I know a young secondary school teacher, graduated a couple of years ago. Finally got a job in an Auckland High where of the 30 kids in the class 28 had english as their second language and most of them, didn't have a grasp of english good enough for study at that level.
She and her husband are leaving Auckland for a provincial town (no, they aren't moving to be closer to family) where she had no problem getting a job at one of the local high schools. I think she is a Maths teacher. Their main reason for leaving Auckland is that they want to start a family and didn't want to bring their kids up in Auckland.
I also know of young primary grads who have applied for jobs only to be told 'go and get some experience, then come back' duh!
On the other side of the coin, my son is coming back to Auckland from Sydney.
Decent schooling in Sydney can easily cost over $20k yearly for each child compared to a "donation" in Auckland.
The result of all this is that even a large drop in income is quite acceptable. Even better is the mortgage in Sydney disappears with an outright Auckland purchase of similar or better standard.
Smiley may wish to catch up to Australia but for some we are already there once benefits v. costs are added up
I personally know half-a-dozen or so couples who have moved to Australia in the last year, as well as some single youngsters. Most of them have gone to Melbourne, several have gone to Perth. The singles are off to the mines.
Sydney has become too expensive - whatever increase in salary you enjoy disappears on accomodation. In fact, it more than disappears - you end up worse off.
In every case the couple is now better off to some extent - more money, better car, better opportunities, more work, bigger house. In virtually every case they miss some aspect of NZ - generally it's the scenery, family, friends - but then they shrug their shoulders and say, "but basically we were broke in NZ so that's just too bad."
My wife and I have looked at going over there, but for us personally there's probably limited value in going right now. I earn a good wage here, we don't need extra money and things are ok.
However, if I lost my job I'd be on the first plane over there. Finding equivalent employment here would take me 6 months. It wouldn't take anywhere near as long in Melbourne.
It's a harsh reality, but NZ has a LONG way to go before it closes the gap with Australia. Well, it's never going to completely close it, but we do need to keep the Ozzies in sight, at least...
Mind you, Phil Goff can shut up. Does he ever do anything other than moan about how rubbish John Key is? Doesn't he realise that it is UNPROFESSIONAL to rubbish the competition - sell on your own strengths Phil. Whatever they might be....
Mozart, how are the ones in Perth doing. I have family htere and they say Perth is a town of two incomes - those involved in mining who are doing very well and the others - who are not having such a good time of it. I have sometimes wondered, if you take mining out of the Australian economy, just how much better than NZ it would be.
I agree with comments above. I like Sydney, but its too damn expensive! If I moved there then I would have gone backwards financially quite a lot
I chose Adelaide because its a liveable city with low-ish costs. Although I earn a bit less here than I did in NZ, that is more than compensated for by the costs of living which is much cheaper than Auckland (rent is about 20% cheaper, petrol more than 30% cheaper, food about 10%, power/ water about 20% cheaper etc etc). Also factor in the 9% super contribution, versus the 2% contribution in NZ
The climate is great - its been in the 20s+ since September. Already reached 35 a couple of times, which is not as bad as it sounds (dry heat, feels equivalent to an Auckland day of 27 degrees)
There's also all the benefits of a bigger country - more options, better quality media journlaism and tV, more choice etc. The general level of discourse and debate on pressing issues is far superior
There are one of two things I miss about NZ, but not much!
The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER This one is a little different ........Two Different Versions ......
There are Different Morals
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter..
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
TV1,2 & 3 News, and Campbell Live
show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
The country is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
allowed to suffer so?
Sue Bradford appears on Campbell Live
with the grasshopper and everybody cries .
The Green Party stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.
Green Party Leader Metiriea Turei condemns the ant
and blames John Key , Rob Muldoon , Roger Douglas , Capitalism and Global warming for the grasshopper's plight.
John Minto exclaims in an interview with TV News that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally to gain votes to win an election , the Government drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to consider how his hard work and preparation has affected the Grasshoppers Mana and,
having nothing left to pay his retroactive
taxes, his home is confiscated under the Government Land Repo Act and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government confiscated house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared to Australia, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a Drugs related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of Homeboy spiders who terrorize the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2011
Alternative version:
Grasshopper born into the right family, sent to the snootiest schools. Grasshopper inherits beaucoup bucks, and an extensive portfolio of shares. Grasshopper passes the time on holidays in the sun and boozing on the yacht, while the ants toil away, working their little feelers to the bone and keeping the businesses going. Grasshopper surveys the dividends and buys another ferrari. Grasshopper has a look at the balance sheet, harrumphs at greedy ants expecting a living wage for all that productive work on his behalf. Grasshopper consults with the board over outrageous personnel costs, and with the other shareholders gives CEO a mandate to reduce staffing. Ants are expendable - there's millions of the little buggers in China. All the hardworking ants are made redundant, and the businesses moved offshore. The economy stagnates, the ants are starving, the assets earned through their hard work are repossessed, their little anthill mortgages go unpaid, the banks panic and freak out.
Grasshopper (in his capacity as director of bank board) goes bleating to the government. The government must bail out the bank and save his shareholdings and bonuses, because he is so very deserving and important and creates so many jobs, and do they not remember that massive bribe, I mean donation, that went into the election warchest? Payback time. Just tax those lazy bloody ants some more to make it up. Look at them, sitting around doing nothing but wash car windshields at intersections and salvage copper from that abandoned factory where they used to work. Thieving little sods. All the spawn will be lazy thieving little sods too, take after their parents. Not like us noble, deserving grasshoppers.
Moral of the story: Beware one-sided propaganda.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.