The number of new immigrants is continuing to hit record highs.
Statistics New Zealand reports that in the 12 months to April a fresh record of 56,813 net migrants was recorded, which is several hundred more than the previous record set only a month earlier.
In the month of April New Zealand had a seasonally adjusted net gain (more arrivals than departures) of 4,700 migrants.
Net migration has been fluctuating around this level for the past six months - though the latest figure is well down on the peak seasonally-adjusted rise of 5,460 recorded in January, which suggests that the current cycle could be near its peak. Economists are expecting the annual net migration figures to hit a top of about 60,000 before starting to recede.
New Zealand's annual natural population growth (IE births minus deaths) is only in about the 30,000-40,000 range.
With about half of all new migrants generally believed to settle in Auckland, the continuing surge is putting increasing pressure on Auckland's already super-heated housing market. For the record, the detailed regional Stats NZ figures suggest that about 26,000 (IE slightly less than half of the country's total) net migrants were settled in the country's largest city in the 12 months to April.
The massive growth in the numbers of net migrants is partly coming from surging numbers of inbound migrants - which hit a new record high in the year - and partly from fewer Kiwis going abroad, particularly to Australia.
In fact during April, for the first time since 1991, this country actually had a net inflow of migrants from Australia (which would of course include Kiwis coming home).
Statistics NZ says that there was a net inflow of 100 migrants from Australia. Since the records of flows between here and Australia began being recorded in 1982, the highest ever monthly inflow of migrants from Australia to here has been just 400, which was recorded in two months during 1983.
The net loss of 1900 people to Australia in the April 2015 year was the smallest since 1992.
In terms of the annual net gain of migrants of 56,800 in the April 2015 year, this was well up from 34,400 in the April 2014 year, and 4,800 in the April 2013 year.
Migrant arrivals reached a new high of 114,400, up 16% from the April 2014 year. Migrant departures numbered 57,600, down 11%.
The biggest net gains of migrants in the April 2015 year were from India (12,200), China (7,800), the United Kingdom (4,600), and the Philippines (4,000). About three-quarters of migrants from India, and half of migrants from China, arrived on student visas.
The monthly numbers of people coming in as permanent residents are actually somewhat lower than they were in the early 2000s - but of course it is not immediately apparent how many people that come in on work or student visas end up later applying for permanent residence.
Visitor arrivals to New Zealand numbered 2.96 million in the April 2015 year, which is the highest-ever annual total, Statistics NZ said. This total was 7% higher than the April 2014 year.
The annual number of visitors from China topped 300,000 for the first time, with the 302,100 visitor arrivals from China in the April 2015 year up some 26% on the previous year.
Net long term migration
Select chart tabs
27 Comments
.. if we took a leaf out of the British colonial experience in Hong Kong , we could find an inhospitable hilly outpost , send all the new migrants there ... Invercargill immediately springs to mind ... and grant it to the Chinese on a 99 year lease ... kind of a reverse of history ...
But then , Invercargill and Bluff are a reverse kind of territory .... not to mention the Tiwai Point Smelter ... imagine converting that power sucker into a hotel ... or workers' accommodation units .... Bluff Harbour could become the Kowloon Bay of the south-south Pacific ...
... we'll come back in 99 years time ... and see how the enclave got on ... pinch it back if it's successful ... give them another 99 years if not ...
Surprised that Mayor Tim hasn't already come up with such an idea to rejuvenate his domain ...
... a lease allows us to make an annual profit out of letting them establish an enclave in an area so inhospitable that it would make a billy-goat die of starvation and exposure ...
Keeps them 1000 miles away from Auckland ... if they prosper , we take back the territory , if they don't , we lose nothing ... Win / Win !!!!
Bluff / Tiwai / Invercargill are going backwards faster than Jolly Kid's reassurances that there's no affordability problem with houses in Auckland ...
Bluff is a hidden gem GBH, one of those beautiful spots that's actually much better than it appears. (I'm descended from Bluff locals so I could be biased). But seriously it's neighbour Stewart Island is one of the most beautiful parts of NZ, with crystal clear water, sheltered bays and inlets, and parts of the Bluff peninsula aren't bad either, such as out at Omaui. Maybe you don't want to face south into the Foveaux but a quarter acre on the slopes of Bluff Hill with an old villa ... Just the ticket...
this is like watching blackadder, from one disaster to the next, how can flooding auckland be good, it will suppress wages, increase housing expenses, put strain on infastructure if not over whelm it.
surely common sense must prevail and the tap slowed down so we can all catch up.
where is the government going to come up with all the money to build more schools, hospitals, road and rail there cant be much more left to sell
We're full. Shut the door. Send them back. You can't just let everyone who wants in to come, otherwise half of China and India will turn up...oops they already have...
We would be doing just fine with one million less NZers. Look at cities like Dunedin and Invercargill where the population has barely increased in forty years - they are doing just fine - nice places to live, low unemployment, cheap houses, excellent quality of life. Compare to Auckland with ridiculous house prices, impossible congestion, shoebox leaky housing, high crime and the need to work huge hours to make ends meet. All the while a teacher, policeman, builder etc earn about the same in both places...
About three-quarters of migrants from India, and half of migrants from China, arrived on student visas.
It would be pretty easy for CG to place overseas enrollment restrictions based on the amount of student accommodation made available by the institution, and a requirement that overseas registered students must live in it. Win win (for NZers that is)..
I have given a great deal of thought to that proposition - I think it is flawed
Tell me where I go wrong in this thinking
There are 90,000 international students in New Zealand
That's 90,000 places and resources not being used to train our domestic student population
Domestic students compete for places and have to incur student debt
Using a simple example of 1 domestic student versus 1 international student on a student visa
The international student, on qualifying decides to apply for permanent residency followed by citizenship, joins the work force at age 25, becomes a tax paying taxpayer, then, several years later brings his 50 yeare old parents in on family re-union visas who at their age will never get jobs but by (say) 60 years of age will be on unemployment or some sort of welfare, and at 65 elegible for National Super. They will require a residence and all the social costs that go with providing that.
Meanwhile the domestic student coming from a lower socio-economic family situation does not enter into tertiary education, remains unskilled, becomes unemployed or depends on his parents who are both employed in manual jobs and paying tax, and already have their own modest home
The tax paid by the international student, over his life-time has to compensate for the unemployed domestic equivalent plus his elderly international parents, whereas, alternatively if we educated the domestic student he would become employable, become a taxpayer while his parents would have stood on their own merits without being dependent on the taxes of their offspring
Wouldn't it be better in the long run to return to free-tertiary education for domestic students, get them into tertiary eduction with excellent bursaries, educated them, train them, give them the skills we need, and reduce the number of international students
In the long run, I think we would get better value at less cost by training our own
Look at the social mess we have got ourselves into with the imported housing crisis
You may be right.
However, the Govt only funds Unis and ITPs to about 85% or less of operating budget.
Therefore the Unis have to market to international student to keep afloat.
The Govt will never want to return to fully fund tertiary ed.
Also, NZ Immigration get a free service from the universities, polys & ptes who run staff vetting, and filtering incoming migrants.
Also it's NZs 5th largest export earner.
Don't have much sympathy for Kiwis (from whatever background) who can't get motivated to get a good qualification and get earning/contributing. They won the lottery by being born in a first world country with a headstart.
That's the fallacy
What they are saving in not fully funding unis and not offering free tertiary education for locals is more than offset down the track in higher costs in other areas - much higher
As I said, I have given this a great deal of thought.
Head-starts and motivation are red-herrings
Germany does what you propose - free tertiary ed. However they then have to restrict entry on academic merit.
Then you get the Private Good versus Public Good argument.
Add to the mix the potential disintermediation of traditional university ed by e-learning and self-certification badging etc.
head starts: maybe a red herring, but when you come from a hopeless country overpopulated , then the opportunities here are amazing, hence motivation of students.
have you noticed the staff in immigration, nowadays to my eyes don't see or Hear many born and raised kiwis. so we have new immigrates vetting who can come in, is it any surprise when you see a couple caught for bribes. As well as all the stories you see about MIB prosecuting for bogus job offers.
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.