Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse is talking up the recent influx of migrants into the country and the prospects for more in coming years.
He "welcomed" two reports out today showing that net migration was continuing to increase as fewer people leave New Zealand and more people are permanently migrating. Statistics New Zealand's most recent monthly figures showed a 10-year high net inflow of migrants in January.
The 13th annual Migration Trends and Outlook report confirms that 7900 more people moved to New Zealand in 2012/13 than left for overseas – reversing the situation of a year earlier when there was a net migration loss of 3200.
The report is predicting that permanent and long-term net migration will exceed 30,000 from the middle of this year as the economy continues to grow.
"This Government has worked hard to ensure that we have the right policies in place to make New Zealand an attractive place to visit, work and live," Woodhouse said.
"With an economy that grew 3.5% in the year to September 2013, and that the OECD predicts will grow at 3.6% this year, New Zealand is well placed to perform well in the global competition for investment and talent.
"These figures suggest that our policies are working with more New Zealanders choosing to stay and work in New Zealand, more returning home, and more immigrants choosing to come here and take advantage of everything we have to offer."
The total number of people approved for temporary work visas in 2012/13 was 144,978, a rise of five per cent on the previous year with increases across most visa categories.
There was a 2% increase in the number of people admitted under the Essential Skills Policy. This was the first annual rise in Essential Skills workers since the start of the global economic slowdown.
"New Zealand’s economic activity is expected to increase over the next three years and generate strong employment growth," Woodhouse said.
"We’re expecting that the number of Essential Skills workers will continue to rise as the Canterbury rebuild ramps up."
The Migration Trends Key Indicators report – December 2013, which is also published today, shows that is already happening with a 19% increase in the number of approved Essential Skills workers between July and December last year compared with the same period in 2012. There was an increase of 43% in the Canterbury region.
Numbers were up in all the main work visa categories with a seven per cent increase in the number of people approved a temporary work visa. The number of international students approved to study in New Zealand went up 10%.
"It’s heartening that with the intense global competition for international students that there has been an increase in the number coming to New Zealand."
Resident visa numbers in the six months to December 2013 were also up from the same period in the previous year while the number of visitor arrivals increased 8% from the same period in the previous year.
China has become the top source country for visitor arrivals after Australia following significant growth in recent years. The growth from China is compensating for the lower numbers from traditional long-haul destinations such as the United Kingdom.
72 Comments
In a world that needs less people not more it is time to decide when enough is enough. "Growth" has its limits and we must acknowledge that we are about there and begin a new way to live a prosperous life without "growth" as the only way to it. That or our grandkids and their kids face a pretty rotten future
OK, that makes it clear then that in your original post you were referring only to New Zealand, not the world as a whole. So you are saying that New Zealand does not have the resources to support any more people, or any higher a standard of living, than is already the case?
Actually, I am going to go even further, I am going to ask anyone out there who is a Sikh how they justify the hypocrisy of all owning and operating all those liquor outlets and now I see on TV last night, a legal highs shop in Papatoetoe when their religion forbids the use of them. I think it is only fair to ask a few questions of these people we are allowing to live in this country.
We shall wait and see then shall we? But I guess if you are in favour of drug lords coming from another country to this, then all well and good, but I'm getting a bit tired of all this imported crime, I thought people had to be of good character to come here. Are you just running scared from this?
Not exactly sure how wanting an immigration policy that tightens up on less than desirables coming into the country can be counted as bigoted. I don't care where they come from, but if our rules are too lax that this sort of people can get in then we need to do something.
What I can't understand is there are people who are quite happy to have doors open to all and sundry including the crims, sound like you GBH?
Well sort of dh, my religious and spiritual beliefs do include the imperative (under a broad range of conditions) that it is my _duty_ to inflict my religious and spiritual values on others.
But as they saying goes, my right to throw a punch ends just before the others guys nose starts :)
Or as in my facebook the other day: It's all nice and fine to have religion/spirituality/beliefs/penis ...but wave any of them in my face and we're going to have trouble...
I don't buy from them. I don't buy from any legal high stores and I don't buy from liquor stores run by them, frankly, I would have thought neither of those occupations were ones that we are short of skills for in NZ anyway. I thought we had restrictions on immigrants but from what I see, I don't believe we do. I thought there were skills shortage criteria, language criteria and of course the one that should not apply,the whole buying your way in criteria ala a certain rotund German. I can't work out how immigrants end up with things like liquor stores, legal highs stores, cleaning franchises, all sorts of franchises actually, it just seems to me we have a holdus boldus approach to it, and that is what I object to.
I believe there IS a limit to growth, inlcuding population and I think we are about there for a number, just relying on ever increasing numbers is loony bin stuff. NZ could lead the way in sustainable living without growth if we just put our mind to it, and forgot about increasing out numbers to prosperity as it is non-existent.
They have the means, and it's not illegal nor is it unethical in many cultures, and it can be readily identified as a in demand profitable niche which locals don't want to fill.
The bit I'm bringing up is that you seem to thinkhe is being immoral against his religion in your eyes. That is not very appropriate.
IF I were religious which I most certainly am not, I would expect that I would embody the teachings of my religion and if my religion demanded that I do not drink alcohol or take drugs then selling them would defintely be counter to that. Just my view, I know there is nothing illegal in what they do, I just think it utterly reeks of hypocrisy and I don't think I have to pretend that I don't
Is that an attempt at satire?
*You* are _not_religious_ yet you think it ok to make a statement about what a man's _religion_ should say,
-while- calling him a hypocrit because his RELIGON which says he is _not_imbibing_ (etc) should in *your* NON-RELIGOUS opinion include telling others not to imbibe.
pot, kettle much.
indeed you do, just as he has the right to sell whatever junk to his customers he wants, provided they purchase of their own will.
yet for a non-religious person to be deciding what should be in a certain religion...
- I was trying to append this to my previous comment:
( *ed: although thinking about it, probably more hubris and chutzpah that hypocritical...that a non-religious person thinks it's ok to tell a prson how their religion is *supposed* to be! )
For the last time I am NOT trying to tell him how his religion is supposed to be, I KNOW that it forbids their drinking or taking drugs, so therefore I find it hypocritical to see them sell them, especially the drugs, I think anyone selling that chemical laden garbage is not the sort of person I want in this country if they are an immigrant, that business is just plain cynical, I'd rather see the natural stuff de-criminalized that stuff outright banned to be frank
Yes Simon, the evidence is clear: Maoris were "made in China" and got to NZ barely 300 Years before Abel Tasman. They killed and ate the people afore them (DSIR have Karaka Berries with rodent teeth marks upon them, that Carbon 14 date to 1500 BC!). We are all immigrants here - but that don't mean we need lots more low quality ones.
Ergophobia
...and they didn't even have a flag. If you don't have a flag it doesn't count.
More seriously, because we want to live under the rule of law we are kinda-sorta supposed to live up to the the treaty/contracts we sign. Though this may well provoke a bunch of posts of a "for other countries yes, but our circumstances are different".
Replies as to be expected from a bunch of idiots spewing the usual rubbish about how others should be given advantage because they got here before someone else. Using that example, why do we give all this money to the Maoris for land we "stole" yet they killed off the people before them? A line needs to be drawn in the sand. There are too many people in this world already - that’s a fact. I for one would vote to stabilize NZ's population no only from cashed up immigrants but also the poor and the stupid being paid by the government to have 10 kids.
I expect to be called racist and a bigot after this post, but someone needs the balls to stand up and say when enough is enough.
You're a racist and a bigot.
Legally, prior occupation is worth rather a lot.
Also Maori could not kill previous occupants were there were none, Moriori of Chathams being the tragic exception thanks to Ngati Mutunga (technically not 'Maori', who were collectively called New Zealanders in the early days of European contact).
You must hate living in Taupo with Tuwharetoa gearing up.
Too many people in the world? There'll be more tomorrow, the sun will rise, and you'll still be a racist and a bigot. Fact.
Your point of arguing that one group of people should be given a unworked-for un-public-interest advantage over others is extremely discriminatory. That discrimination is based on racial lines, and has nothing to do with how or what the people themselves are able to do, as you're basing the entitlement to this advantage on near random events that happened to peoples' ancestors.
Lets split the difference.... their ancestors can have previous claim, free use to kill each other or marry as they see fit, full entitlement to cultural and ownership...for their entire lives.
Now "simbit" stop being racist (basing your advantage on racial lines) , and a bigot (split the world into the entitled and non-entitled) and stop trying to discriminate against people who are just trying to fairly live their lives.
And yeah...btw, if you keep going on about prior occupation you will eventually create a civil disorder.
The imperials were doing well, and had great respect for and of the Maori.
The local colonials and worse their militia were a severe problem.
The issue with Australia is that there was no-one to have treaties with, nor were the population any significant threat. And those who had established power by that stage had no love nor respect of the indigenous population (who were nowhere near as advanced culturally or technologically as the Maori (and still aren't...))
But back in Britain, money and merchantile goods were plentiful. Economies were booming. Well heeled populations tend towards decadence and curiousity, not aggressiveness and warmongering. In that environment treaties, exotic trade, and spectacle were the order of the day - slogging around in the mud, bleeding out on the battle field, and grubbing for rations and armaments - if they wanted that, they could play Napoleon and fight with Spain and France some more. No, such things were boorish and uncivilised. Archaeology, mountaineering, houses full of science and curiousities far far more popular !
I would hope that in the coming election there is clarity in which party would move to limit immigtation. This would allow any one with a distaste for high house prices, overburdened health system, clooged traffic and a struggling education system to make their vote count.
Let me first define immigrants as permanent immigrants in my post please.
"a distaste for high house prices"?
to some extend affected by immigrants.
"overburdened health system"?
immigrants are generally healthier than 'local' say people being here more than two generations as a result of current immg policy -- health is the first and foremost point of assessment. Should aging population be the culprit of this point?
"clogged traffic"?
I am sure there are cities, with far more population than AKL does, have far more efficient transport system. How about blaming for bad infrastructure?
"a struggling education system"?
well, international students are actually paying for NZ's education bill. One international student is paying fees for 3 locals. A struggling education system is caused by lack of international student in recent years and govt funding.
Sorry Plan B, but the higher education system is strongly subsidised by immigrants, the majority of which are Asian. Effectively the government meets some of the bulk funding which pays for upkeep of assets and a few infrastructure jobs, NZ Students are heavily subsidised by the government still but this comes with conditions on the maximum price. The discretionary income in the profit margin is the foreign students paying full tuition and research studies, the majority of NZ studies are small and cheap, requiring several to be collected together to support a team. The cheaper foreign borrowing allows foreigners to invest more heavily in R&D using our experts.
High school budgets are subsidized by international students as well, at least for the mid-decile and higher ones
A faily typical article from the Herald the other week, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11211095
As the article notes, the drop in New Zealand's ranking in the past year could have a few flow on effects for "nice" schools.
Xing......can you not see that all of that list is affected negatively when more people want to share the same cake. I am not anti those who are already here, but if you are a recent arrival you must ask yourself why did I come here and if more follow, will I ecentually be living in the same hell hole I left? Increasing popuation will destroy what we have......why this is so difficult to grasp beggars belief.
I am now convinced that the Nat cabinet really does have the odd nutcase. With his comment Woodhouse is vying for top of them.
Some National natural voters I know have yet to link to the implicatrions of the National immigration policies. When they do then Key is goneburger! These otherwise informed voters are furious about seeing their own kids not being able to afford a house and are gradually linking immigration to housing availability.
'nuff for now.
Draw your own conclusions.
Interesting how the minds of "opposition voters" work. When theres mass migration out of NZ to the likes of Australia its all the Govts fault for poor policy making. When they all come flooding back in, many of them returning NZers, its terrible Govt policy that causing all sorts of problems for the country...I guess with some people you can never win.
mind you we wouldn't be off to Morwell anytime soon
http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2014/03/08/why-morwell-burning/13941…
Those fires made their way to the inadequately protected coalmine of Hazelwood. It hasn’t stopped burning since. Plumes of ash and toxic smoke have covered Morwell for weeks now, obliging the state’s chief health officer to encourage the young and elderly of Morwell to evacuate, and the state and federal governments to issue relocation grants to residents. Meanwhile, the coal fire has bedevilled firefighters who are grappling with its enormous size and complexity. Coal fires are famously implacable; the oldest known fire is in New South Wales, where Burning Mountain’s underground coal seam has smouldered for 6000 years.
According to realestate.com.au there are 128 stand-alone houses for sale in Morwell for $A 150 000 or less .... in a town whose 2006 census revealed just 13400 residents .... common section sizes are 660 to 1000 sq. metres ..
... rentals are $ 160 - $ 180 per week ....
Winter's coming , time to line your lungs with some coal-tar smoke , Henry !!!
Absolutely true Peak, and good point, but from my personal observations of some closer to me, it is the same people, but you could definitely classify them in the "moaners" category, and frankly they can be supporters of any party. At the moment though the LG supporters are the more vocal as it suits their political views.
To be fair it was an article about something a National cabinet minister said, and you get a similar reaction from other people on here whenever a Labour or Green MP makes the news.
For what it's worth, I support controlled immigration (more or less the status quo*) and am still critical of the government on other matters.
*I do think we overemphasise the investor category, in my ideal world we would give more weighting to the young and enthusiastic and less weighting to those expert at being corrupt oligarchs.
Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse is talking up the recent influx of migrants into the country and the prospects for more in coming years.
.....
he can do that because thier is little opposition from opposition parties or the media neverthless:
*/
80% of our population growth in the last couple of decades has been the net inflow of non NZ citizens .
“Among policy and analytical circles in New Zealand there is a pretty high degree of enthusiasm for high levels of immigration. Some of that stems from the insights of literature on increasing returns to scale. Whatever the general global story, the actual productivity track record here in the wake of very strong inward migration is poor. In an Australian context, the Productivity Commission – hardly a hot-bed of xenophobia or populism – concluded that any benefits from migration to Australia were captured by migrants and there were few or no discernible economic benefits to Australians. And that was in a country already rich and successful and with materially higher national saving and domestic investment rates than those in NZ.”
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf
Government policies blamed for house prices
“Immigration and tax breaks for investment in residential property are being cited as the underlying causes of steep increases in the cost of housing over the past decade.
New Zealand now boasts one of the highest rates of home unaffordability in the world as a result of prices rising far faster than incomes, and the government’s Savings Working Group blames that squarely on the policies of successive governments.
Although “the favourable tax treatment of property investment” accounted for about 50% of house price increases between 2001 and 2007, the working group said, there was also strong evidence that rapid swings in immigration brought about price-rise “shocks”.
There was a sharp spike in immigration in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, said working group committee member Dr Andrew Coleman, it appeared that property prices did not fall anywhere near as greatly when immigration fell again.
The report added that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit. ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices
etc
Jim Rogers The Investment Biker on Singapore
*/
While he describes Singapore as being “extraordinarily well run,” Rogers believes that limiting immigration will be detrimental to its future development. “One of the reasons why Singapore has been successful is because it encouraged immigration and nearly everyone in Singapore is an immigrant or family of an immigrant,” he says, before adding that “Lee Kuan Yew [Singapore’s founding Prime Minister] is a second-generation immigrant.” With its low taxes, low unemployment rate, and good rule of law, Singapore has always been an appealing immigration destination. In recent years, it has also become a haven for the world’s rich and famous. Besides Jim Rogers, Singapore’s new residents include Chinese celebrities Jet Li and Gong Li, as well as several members of Forbes Asia‘s Singapore rich list: New Zealand-born investor Richard Chandler (No. 5), Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (No. 8), and property tycoons Raj Kumar & Kishin RK (No. 11), among others.
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.
...........................
No wonder Labour/Green lack relevance.
there are many ways in which people think.
The comments section provide some illumination.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/hong-kong-asylum-seekers-w…
In the 1950s, tens of thousands of migrants came to Britain from the Indian subcontinent. Many arrived with no more than £3 in their pocket - the limit set by the Indian authorities. They came to work in Britain's factories, foundries, and new public services. It was a time when the country desperately needed workers from its former colonies to regenerate its post-war economy. Presenter Kavita Puri, whose own father Ravi came with just a few pounds himself, hears his and other stories of the pioneering men who arrived in the 50s. They recall their first impressions of the country that once ruled over their own: the shocking housing conditions, the curiosity of neighbours and kindness of strangers and also the memories of casual racism and animosity. These men led the way for the three million people of South Asian descent who live in Britain today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ws7gm
To those who use the argument that migrants shouldn't be stopped from coming because they or their ancestors were migrants:--
In the late 19th century and early 20th century, immigration to New Zealand could be seen
as reflecting a favourable shock to the tradable sector. Opening up new lands to
production, falling transport costs, refrigerated shipping combined to lift the population
capacity of New Zealand while still offering high wages and high rates of return.
By the middle of the 20th century, New Zealand was settled and producing, and
technological change in the key export sectors was no longer as rapid (relative to other
producers). The factor price equalisation justification for strong population growth had
dissipated, yet population growth remained high. Across the OECD, there is some
evidence that rapid population growth in post-war advanced countries was associated with
143
an apparent cost to per capita growth rates.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10
....
In other words the ship doesn't need a bigger crew. As is happens immigration creates it's own demand.
The macroeconomic effects of immigration in New Zealand are uncertain. There are
plausible arguments but as yet no evidence for large positive or negative impacts of
immigration. Some economists and geographers argue in favour of high rates of
immigration on the grounds that migrants can boost productivity through scale,
agglomeration and innovation. In contrast, some macroeconomists argue that in a low
savings economy, the resource pressures associated with high migration put persistent
upward pressure on real interest and exchange rates, leading to a re-allocation of
resources from more productive tradable sectors to less productive infrastructure, and
reducing productivity growth.
The lack of evidence is not symmetric. New Zealand has had high levels of inward
migration for 20 years now. Arguments for large positive effects invoke the possibility that
there are long lags, or that more positive effects will occur once some higher population
threshold is reached. In this case there is presently no evidence, but a possibility that
positive effects will eventually be reaped. In contrast, stylised facts such as real interest
rates that are high by international standards and a real exchange rate which has not
adjusted to the sustained deterioration in New Zealand’s relative productivity performance
are real and demonstrable, but cannot be definitively linked to migration policy.
The complexity of causality means it may not be possible to settle these arguments
empirically in New Zealand. The most robust available evidence points to migration having
small effects, some of which are positive (such as improving fiscal balance) and some
negative (such as labour market competition for the higher skilled). The large productivity
benefits hoped for when the scale and skills focus of migration were increased in the early
1990s have not been realised. Why not?
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10
Migration and Macroeconomic
Performance in New Zealand:
Theory and Evidence
Julie Fry
New Zealand Treasury Working Paper 14/10
......
or bullshit to that (as they say)!
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.