New Zealand had its biggest net monthly gain of migrants in four years last month, as well as hitting a new June record for the number of temporary visitors, according to Statistics New Zealand.
There was a seasonally adjusted net gain (more arrivals than departures) of 2300 permanent and long term migrants in June 2013. Permanent and long-term (PLT) arrivals hit a 10-year high of 8300 during the month, while PLT departures, at 6000, were the lowest since July 2010.
The continuing surge in net migration gains will put even more pressure on the rising New Zealand housing market, particularly in over-heated Auckland, which is the destination for most migrants. See here for our articles on housing affordability.
The monthly net gain of migrants was the highest since May 2009, when the figure was 2600.
ASB economist Daniel Smith said while June’s strong migrant inflow was driven by fairly volatile movements in arrivals from a small number of countries, "we do expect a trend of widening net migration inflows to continue".
This was likely to be driven by an improvement in NZ’s labour market relative to that of Australia, influencing more Kiwis to stay – and more to return from across the Tasman.
"Stronger migration inflows may place more pressure on some of NZ’s supply-constrained housing markets, particularly in Auckland (the number one destination for migrants) and Christchurch (where employment opportunities are attracting more and more arrivals)," he said.
The migration picture has turned around rapidly in recent months, as more people have come into the country and significantly fewer Kiwis have opted to cross the ditch to Australia - probably in response to the worsening economic environment across the Tasman.
The seasonally adjusted net loss of 1600 migrants to Australia in June 2013 was the smallest net loss since July 2010 (also 1600). The latest net loss to Australia was well down from a high of 3600 recorded in September 2011.
In the June 2013 year, New Zealand had a net gain of 7900 migrants. This is up from a net loss of 3200 in the June 2012 year, but below the annual average of 9400 over the last 10 years.
Unadjusted figures showed there were 88,200 PLT arrivals in the June 2013 year, up 5% from the June 2012 year (84,400). PLT departures numbered 80,300, down 8% from the previous year (87,600).
There were net gains of migrants from most other countries in the June 2013 year, led by: the United Kingdom (6300) China (5200) India (5100) the Philippines (2000).
In terms of short-term visitor statistics short-term overseas visitor arrivals to New Zealand numbered 159,500 in June 2013, up 6% from June 2012 (151,100). The latest figure surpassed the previous high for June, recorded in 2005 (157,500) during the British and Irish Lions rugby tour of that year.
There were 2.637 million visitor arrivals to New Zealand in the June 2013 year. This is unchanged from the June 2012 year, but visitor numbers that year were boosted by the Rugby World Cup.
The 2013 figure was up 5% compared with the June 2011 year. Visitor numbers from the United States (189,500, up 6600) overtook those from the United Kingdom (189,000, down 25,400) in the June 2013 year.
This made the United States the third-largest source of visitors to New Zealand, behind Australia (1,183,900) and China (222,700). This change in ranking is mainly due to a decline in visitor numbers from the United Kingdom, which have fallen 39% from a high of 310,200 in the April 2006 year. In comparison, annual visitor arrivals from the United States are 16% below their high of 225,600 in the December 2006 year.
Net long term migration
Select chart tabs
29 Comments
yep house prices will rise higher and there will be more economic pain. Expect unemployment to rise to at least 7% by year's end as I predicted at the start of the year. Fewer kiwis will be able to find jobs in aus and Auckland is not creating enough jobs. Higher house prices and higer rents means less disposable income equals less spending (cancelling out the "wealth effect" for those enjoying house price rises).
Maybe if, as I suggested years ago, the govt started building more state homes and freed up planning controls things would be looking much better for house prices and the economy as a whole. But they haven't done either, and have been "all talk".
Nice if you are a property investor, but generally bad overall.
NZIS continues to pack migrants into Auckland , and Auckland council continues on its blinkered and disasterous path of restriction of the City's growth .
In the face of zero new supply of land due to current restrictions in any market , prices cannot go anywhere but up .
You can't stop kiwis returning home but we sometimes talk as though this just happens like the weather. This is what the Savings Working Group said about progressive governments who seem to care more about the Richmastery rent seeker types (above) than a truly just society:
SWG Report:
The Government’s role
Clearly, there are serious questions to be asked about New Zealand’s economic policy and how we got into this mess. Why was it not better designed and managed, and more focussed, coordinated and strategic? Did the electorate simply get what it voted for, without realising what was really happening, or have New Zealanders not been well served over the years?
Underlining the current difficult situation, the government is spending at an unsustainable level and running large deficits (the opposite of saving). As a result, it is borrowing a hefty $300 million a week. It needs to return the Budget to a surplus of no less than 2% of GDP as soon as possible.
Looking ahead over the next 20 years or so, the government will face increasing costs from the effects of an ageing population. If the government is to keep its borrowing within a sustainable level (as it must) over this period, its options are to: substantially increase tax revenue, reduce government spending, or increase government sector productivity and performance. The first two options are clearly unpalatable. However, modelling shows that if the government can lift its performance and increase productivity by 2% a year for five years and 1% thereafter, there would be no need to raise taxes or cut government services. The SWG strongly recommends this.
On other government policy issues, SWG recommendations include:
- A much more strategic and integrated approach to policy generally.
- Serious consideration of the impact of the level and variability of immigration on national saving, and the impact that this might have on the living standards of New Zealanders. There are indications that our high immigration rate has pushed up government spending, house prices and business borrowing.
- Improving data on household and business saving.
Hermna Daly on the Daly Blog:
The Full Employment Act of 1946 declared full employment to be a major goal of U.S. policy. Economic growth was then seen as the means to attain the end of full employment. Today that relation has been inverted. Economic growth has become the end, and if the means to attain that end — automation, off-shoring, excessive immigration — result in unemployment, well that is the price “we” just have to pay for the glorified goal of growth in GDP. If we really want full employment we must reverse this inversion of ends and means. We can serve the goal of full employment by restricting automation, off-shoring, and easy immigration to periods of true domestic labor shortage as indicated by high and rising wages. In addition, full employment can also be served by reducing the length of the working day, week, or year, in exchange for more leisure, rather than more GDP.
Real wages have been falling for decades, yet our corporations, hungry for cheaper labor, keep bleating about a labor shortage. What the corporations really want is a surplus of labor. With surplus labor, wages generally do not rise and therefore all the gains from productivity increase will go to profit, not wages. Hence the elitist support for automation, off-shoring, and lax enforcement of democratically enacted immigration laws.
http://dalynews.org/learn/blog/
So do we have high and rising wages....?
Headline news - Net gain of 2,300 PLT's or approx 600 households
Forget the seasonal smoothing - thats just statistical speak
Reality is 8300 PLT's arrived 6,000 PLT's departed
Sensational emotive stirring unquestioning headline stuff
You should be talking about the unwillingness of the data issuers to provide complete data
Information contained on the arrivals and departures cards - just not published - why not?
There are so many possibilities - here are just a few
(a) Intended destination of 100% of arrivals was Stewart Island or Invercargill, or Paekakariki
(b) 100% of all Departures were from Auckland
or some of the arrivals were kiwis returning from overseas after some time away whose
(c) Destination was Auckland who are returning to mothballed houses, or
(d) Destination was Auckland returning back to houses that were rented out
Who can tell
According to The Wall Street Journal, our robust economy is drawing ex-NZers & others back to our labour market and superior economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873233094045786150716698511…
Yes of course the glass half full brigade in effect doent see the expotential growth or doubling time. Its a common issue, you almost have to train yourself to think about it, now im aware of it I step back and try and thionk about that.. What "annoys" me is after pointing out something that hasnt been thought through is where ppl just carry on anyway....
The system in the US is of course quite different, the "councils" gain icome as house prices rise and lose income as house prices drop. Im assuming the same issue is reflected in the MUDs? if thats the case then they also could be in a bad way.
NZ ha been "lucky" so far, where would we be on a 30% housing drop? aka the USA? Id suggest it would be / will be uglier here as well, not as bas as rates are calculated on what $s are needed, but still. 30% would actually be pretty catestrophic I suspect...and very likely.
regards
The present rental is -1%, so that has to change around, the problem is you are ignoring ppls ability to pay, plus assuming a recoverng economy. I see no pay increases overall on the horizon, to see ppls money increase.
Tell you what enlighten us, describe the model or reasons why you see increases, and book a calender 12 months away and lets re-visit lets see if your reasons eventuated....beause my models suggest small gains at best...
So If the Govn doesnt up the allowance I think you will be lucky to see an overall gain, say 5%...or 3 to 4% after inflation which I assume is what you'd class as an improvement. So tell me whats teh "shock"? 10%? hadrly.....so 20%?
So lets say in july 2014 you expect to see a 20% gain in rentals? given property gained 15~20% this year then after this year's gains maybe 20% is your expectation?
My expectation <5%
catch you then
regards
steven, do you run models on this sort of thing?
Sorry mate but I haven't the time for all that 'train spotting' analysis stuff. As a landlord I buy property and let it out, counting the money along the way of course. Don't tell scarfie... but it sure beats working 9 to 5.
And the way things have been going I am so busy counting the dough I've no time for considering 'models' of economic behaviour. Shall leave that to the economists et al.
My advice to you. Get the money out of the deposit accounts and into a suitable property near you. All good earned income.
It's much more fun than economic models.
Regards,
Your Landlord.
Sorry steven.
Don't need to suddenly "substantiate " my property investing. Been providing quality housing to people who want to rent it since I was a teenager in the late 1980s and so will just carry on carrying on. It's earned me my millions so I have no desire to change.
I have no complaints or regrets whatsoever about every one of the properties I have bought and wouldn't dream of selling anything. I am well past having to assess options and shift my money around. I own plenty of income-producing property - it's all I have ever invested and re-invested my hard-earned money in - and wouldn't think of suddenly changing course after so long.
Of course it also feels great to provide such a worthwhile service to other people.
All's great in Landlord land mate.
I do hope you are as happy with your investing as I am.
Regards,
Your Landlord
Hi raegun.
Well I think homes are always affordable. After all, the reason why prices are what they are is because people are buying them. Prices are not set by some third-party 'greater power', unrelated to people. If people are buying them... they are affordable.
The "likes" of me will always be around though, to provide a useful service to people who chose to rent or can't buy. That's where property investors do a bloody good job too I reckon, even if I do say so myself.
You are correct though. My property investments are in "such demand" that it is proving very busy and the money rolls in all the time.
Shows how valuable the service I provide is. Earning a lot is a big vote of confidence by everyone, in the services provided by property investors.
Cheers.
the contradictory world of rental income
His Landlord: (a landlord) calls it "all good earned income"
Kimy: (another landlord) calls it "passive income"
Scarfie: (a non-landlord) calls it "unearned income"
YL - hope you're not renting out rooms to illegal overstayers - that's hard work
I do think that because landlords have bought and continue to buy multiple properties in NZ, it makes it a lot harder for first home buyers as they have to compete, as a single bloke, its is nigh impossible to buy a place on your own in the neighbourhood I grew up in. I totally blame YOU YL. Just kidding, but you can see where I'm coming from. I'm pretty sure, judging by first hand accounts, that it is harder now to buy a home than it was in the great depression, and thats saying something.
Quoting the net immigration figures and not the gross values is a trick learnt from the UK government to hide the true numbers from residents of foreigners coming into the country. Controlled immigration does have benefits for the country but, as we've seen in the UK, an open door policy brings huge unplanned for demands on public services, most notable of these are schools and the health service. Those who care for the future of the country and that of their children should be watching these figures very carefully indeed.
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.