Statistics New Zealand said that in December the country had a seasonally adjusted net gain (more arrivals than departures) of 2800 migrants.
The monthly net gain has been about this level since September 2013, after increasing from near zero in December 2012.
The increase was due to fewer people departing to live in Australia, as well as more arriving migrants.
Non-New Zealand citizens contributed most of the increase in arrivals.
For the full year to December there was an actual gain of 22,468 migrants, which is the highest annual inflow since 2003. The biggest net gain ever in a calendar year was 38,198 in 2002.
The pace of inbound migration has quickened during the latter part of 2013. If you annualise the latest seasonal figures it gives a rate of about 34,000 net immigrants a year, which is getting close to historically high levels.
In the December 2013 year, migrant arrivals from all countries numbered 94,000, the highest since the October 2003 year (94,900). Migrant departures numbered 71,500, resulting in the net gain of nearly 22,500 migrants. This compared with a net loss of 1,200 migrants in the December 2012 year.
In the latest year, New Zealand had a net loss of 19,600 migrants to Australia, well down from 38,800 a year earlier. Net gains were recorded from most other countries, led by the United Kingdom (5800), China (5700), and India (5400).
The Christchurch rebuild has seen more people coming in on work-related visas, while the fewer numbers going to Australia reflect that fact that at the moment the Australian economy is not viewed favourably compared with New Zealand's immediate prospects.
The strong pace of net inbound migration will inevitably put more pressure on New Zealand's heated housing market, particularly in the very hot Auckland market - as generally around half inbound migrants settle in the country's largest city, at least initially.
The highest net inflow ever recorded was 42,500 in the May 2003 year. The highest net outflow was 43,600 in the July 1979 year.
Net long term migration
Select chart tabs
17 Comments
Don't forget the extra amount that we will have to borrow from overseas to build their requisit extra houses, infrastructure and the interest thereon. The extra food and consumables that they will require are products that we either cannot export or have to be imported. What do they contribute, more underpaid taxi drivers, garage and food takeaway attendendants, I see them contributing little or nothing to exports to pay their way. But hey it keeps wages down, unemployment up and the property bubble bouncing along.
I WILL VOTE FOR THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT UNDERTAKES TO SLOW DOWN THE RATE OF IMMIGRATION.
We need to at least take a breather while we get on top of our housing backlog.
We also need to be more selective becasue we now have enough cleaners, fast -food cooks , painters , security guards, taxi drivers and hairdressers , and heaps of unemployed people on the benefit to do this work.
This 'give us your huddled masses" nonsense is just that .... nonsense .
America dropped this idea ages ago , and we need to do the same.
What we need, is job growth in other parts of the country - not just in Auckland. The main problem is everybody flocking to Auckland as that's where all the jobs are - or at least it's perceived that that's where all the jobs are.
We have space for a good few more people. NZ is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
With regards to immigration policies and the ease to obtaining visas, work permits and residence permits...that's quite hard already.
Not too sure that the people being "allowed in" are cleaners, fast-food cooks and security guards.
I'd like to see a breakdown of visas/permits issued by jobs, but I'm not sure if that data is available.
A good few immigrants are from countries with whom we have arrangement (Samoa, other Pacific Island, Australia), and the rest are probably either refugees, or families brought over under the family arrangements....
The amount of unemployed people is actually not that great. Somewhere around 6.3%, and you have to remember that that is 6.3% of the labour force (= people between 15 and 65). That's not 6.3% of the whole population. Labour force is approximately 2.4million. That would mean about 151,200 unemployed people between the ages of 15 and 65.
If you then apply the fact that the unemployment rate of under 25s is about 25%, that figure of unemployed Joe&Jane Bloggs' becomes a whole lot less....
.
Perspective can be everything, sometimes.
That kind of investing wouldn't get you a visa....Check out the link below for investor criteria...
http://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/new-zealand-visa/visas-to-invest/investor-visa
Acceptable investments
- New residential property development that is not for the investor’s personal use and designed to make a commercial return on the open market
- Have the potential to contribute to New Zealand’s economy, and
- Not be for the personal use of the investor.
http://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/new-zealand-visa/visas-to-invest/accep…
I WILL VOTE FOR THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT UNDERTAKES TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY OF IMMIGRATION , THAT TRUSTS THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION TO DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY , AND THAT WELCOMES NEW FOLKS TO OUR SHORES , WHETHER THEY'RE DOCTORS , STOREKEEPERS , RESTAURATEURS , ... ... OR JUST PLAIN OLD BOATMEN ....
... we're all immigrants here , or the scions of them .... NZ has no truely " native " people , not in the sense that Africa does ....
Welcome NEWBIES , hope the Kiwi life is all that you dreamed it would be .... Welcome !
Even GBH should know shouting is uncouth and results in the recipient at least pretending to be deaf.
However after the rant , I personally will vote for the party that recognises that extra immigrants are contributing to the exacerbation of housing prices and then also recognises that the tax system needs to rebalance the investor versus owner-occupier problem. It also just happens that a significant number of new investments in existing housing stock will be either immigrants (with a money surplus and a language deficit) or their mates who have pushed their cash here maybe ahead of fleeing to our cushy bolt hole.
I'm descended only from NZ Europeans, the last of whom arrived in the 1890s. Most were here before 1875 and the earliest NZ born was my great great grandmother born over 150 years ago. At least three sets of great great great grandparents born over 200 years ago are buried in New Zealand, and I still visit those graves.
So GBH I find it a bit offensive to call us all newbies.
If immigration benefits us with more congestion, more expensive real estate and more people who don't understand our way of life, then I could easily do without those benefits.
... not one person at interest.co.nz has suggested opening the floodgates and allowing in as many people as want to come here ... No one ...
And yet every time you blog you accuse pro-immigration folk of taking that line .... the actual % change to our population is quite tiny , on an annualised basis ...
NZ remains one of the most underpopulated countries ( people/km2 ) in the world ....
.... we are " top heavy " , in that Auckland contains a third of our total population ... and that % is tipped to rise to 37 % over the next decade ....
So the question needs to be asked , how to attract locals and migrants to other parts of our fair land , girt by sea ...
.... Bluff is a sweet spot to do some girting .... as is Parnassus .... St. Andrews .... Fairlie ..... Cust .... Taihape .... Eketehuna ....
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.