New Zealand's net population gain from migration hit a new all time monthly high of 6748 people in January, surpassing the previously monthly record of 6692 in February 2003.
Statistics NZ said there was an annual net gain (the number of permanent and long-term arrivals less the number of permanent and long-term departures) of 53,800 people in the 12 months to the end of January, which was more than double the 25,666 net migration gain that occurred in the 12 months to January 2014.
The total number of immigrants arriving in this country on a permanent and long term basis was 111,522 in the year to January, while 57,725 people left the county on a permanent or long term basis in the same period, leaving a net population gain of 53,797.
January was also the sixth straight month in row in which the annual record for net migration gain was broken.
The biggest net gain of migrants in the year to January came from the India (10,776), followed by China (7588 plus 615 from Hong Kong), the UK (5,072), the Philippines (3,753), France (2726) and Germany (2608).
There was a net migration loss of 2888 people to Australia in the year to January, although the loss of people to Australia is slowing on both a monthly and annual basis.
In the year to January 2014, 17,064 people departed permanently for Australia and in the year to January 2013, 37,936 people headed across the ditch from this country.
In January this year, only 433 people headed to Australia permanently, compared with 1342 in January 2014 and 3883 in January 2013
Statistics NZ classifies permanent and long term travellers as anyone arriving or departing for 12 months or more.
Over the last few years the number of people arriving in this country has been increasing substantially while the number leaving has been in substantial decline, resulting in rapid population growth form migration.
According to Statistics NZ, in the year to January 2012 there was a net migration loss of 3134 people, which turned around to a net gain of 12 people in the year to January 2013, which climbed to a net gain of 24,666 in the year to January 2014 and exploded to a net gain 53,797 in the current year.
However the population growth from migration could go higher still, with Westpac saying it is yet to peak.
In it its latest First Impressions report commenting on the latest migration figures, Westpac's senior economist Felix Delbruck said the bank's economists expected net migration to peak at around 60,000 a year.
"That means continued very strong population growth, with the associated boost to retail spending and housing demand," he said.
Net long term migration
Select chart tabs
58 Comments
Wow , Thats just mind -blowing........... a rate of 177 new people every day , or 22 people evey 8 hour day , 7 days a week
And we dont have enough empty houses for those of us already here .
So the Housing New Zealand backlog will explode as poorer Kiwis are forced out of rentals that are sold or rented to wealthy migrants
Remind me again ........... what the oft - used colloqial definition of insanity is ?
What's insane is that we don't have a system that responds to fluctuating housing needs - it is, after all, only 3 years since our net annual migration was negative.
Just before you infarct over this rate of migration consider the province of Alberta in Canada. The province's population is slightly smaller than NZ's but:
- the two metroplitan areas, Edmonton and Calgary, add about 270 people per day and have been for years
- far from it causing any major disasters the median house price in Calgary is $395K and Edmonton is $350K
Even though we are not top of the list for rate of population growth we somehow seem to be the best at not catering for that growth. OK I would call that insanity.
I'd rather have social cohesion than a large tax base.
Having lived through uncontrolled immigration and Tony Blair's multicultural dream I would prefer that we don't create the same mess here.
Immigration needs to be at a pace that the country can tolerate. Sufficient infrastructure, services and accomodation need to be in place. We don't want the slum landlords that are cropping up in London or the no-go-zone immigrant ghettos.
What tripe. There's no 'no-go-zone immigrant ghettos" in London. If we need more infrastructure then we can build more. Why are you so afraid of growing our country? There is no problem with social cohesion and there won't be. BTW, I haven't seen any slums any where in New Zealand even though we've allowed thousand upon thousands of Englishmen, Welsh and Scots in.
Carefully re-read my comment. I didn't suggest the slums were already here, but they are most certainly in London.
http://www.economist.com/node/21542164
Parts of South Auckland are already heading this way.
I'm originally from Newham, East London and I will tell you that at night, it's a no-go-zone. Crime is absolutely rampant and under reported.
You are either a troll or in a state of absolute denial.
Yes I would. If you havent observed, the rest of the world is drowning from too many people ...more people = less share of the cake (and the cake is getting hacked to death).
Each arrival is a new mouth to feed, new polluter, new consumer, new demander of 'rights' . A negative drain on what we have.
Cheer up Rastus. The world is getting better every day. Record what and corn production and the good old USA is cleaning the planet up for us.
"Between 1990 and 2008, US manufacturing output grew by one-third. Yet air pollution from US factories fell by about two-thirds."
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/8/7999417/US-factory-pollution-offshoring
"The world will have even more wheat than expected, increasing a grain glut that’s kept a lid on global food inflation."
http://www.agweb.com/article/world-wheat-supply-will-be-bigger-than-for…
..ignorance is bliss for sure. Sometime I wish I was short sighted, ignorant or maybe just being stupid would do it. But I aint. you keep partying on, I'll keep on hoping that we can change, not for my sake (I'm pretty damed comfortable), but for the next genration - the ones we will leave with the mess.
The future holds little in store for younger generations beyond debt servicing, especially so for the cohort residing in the US.
When it comes to the future of the dollar status as the world's reserve currency, the most important chart may be the fact that the US is now so woefully buried in debt that another global military conflict appears inevitable... Read more
Gosh I'll do my best. I do count my lucky stars every day that I'm blessed to have all my family and friends in one of the worlds most unaffordable cities!
Of course as a young first home buyer I'll probably have to choose between a home or starting a family of my own. What was that you were saying about a shrinking tax base again?
Good point steven. I just checked and it looks like only 100 points are needed. A few years back it was 140 points. Interesting. That's a big difference.
Hmmm ignoring the skills shortage or job offer and using the criteria for when I arrived, I get 75.
Otherwise putting those in I just re-ran it and got 240.....
o^0
So the Q is I see ppl posting that those coming in are waiters etc so how unless, it seems a job offer makes a huge difference.
--edit--
indeed,
"A principal applicant's current skilled employment in New Zealand for a period of at least twelve months qualifies for sixty points"
So I can see the potential for a scam right here, it cant be that easy can it?
--edit2--
Ah actually above 100 you have enough to go into a pool, it takes 140+ to be drawn out automatically.
I'm a skilled migrant (from Spain) and I'm very familiar with the point-based system.
There are statistics that show that even when qualifying to be included in the pool (more than 100 points but less than 140) it's nearly impossible to ever get selected, so every immigrant including myself wait to apply until we reach 140 points or more (basically because it's a pretty expensive process).
These points are not that easy to get as it might seem because:
- Studies have to be assessed by the NZQA (a lot of money and time + demonstrating previous experience in the field, in my case I had to demonstrate 3 years experience in IT)
- Some professions require further paperwork (medicine, physiotherapy and some engineers) often very difficult to obtain due to entry bareers by professional organisations in NZ.
- The younger the candidate is, the more points (although it's a small difference)
- Work experience has to be demonstrated against Immigration NZ to get those points
- English must be advanced and it's mandatory to take an IELTS test and get a 6.5 or 7.0 overall out of 9.0 for non native speakers.
- No medical conditions that could cause any cost to NZ, so medical tests (blood+x-ray etc. are mandatory)
- No criminal records, so police reports are mandatory for all the countries where the applicant has lived (in my case I had to get those papers from 2 different countries)
In normal conditions, a good profession in a demanded area and years of experience IS NOT ENOUGH to get 140 points (unless you're a PHD and/or your partner can contribute with some points due to her/his profession and experience as well)
What makes the difference to reach 140 points is usually:
- A Job Offer (the most important)
- Or having studied in NZ. This is the main immigration gate for many and this is what it has made of NZ education system a big business. Many immigrants don't come to NZ to study because of the quality (standards are not that high in my opinion) but because of the possibilities to remain in the country and end up bringing relatives.
The system is matematically designed to allow only people that would contribute very possitively to the NZ's economy and it's certainly not easy (although it's easier than migrating to USA or Australia but salaries are also lower and there are less opportunities).
As I have said previously, immigration will decline when job offers decline. NZ has a huge advantage over other countries in the world: It's easy to control immigration, it's remote and many many immigrants would return to their countries (or go to another) if the job opportuinities are not attractive anymore. So I wouldn't be concerned about immigration in NZ. Certainly not about skilled immigrants.
PS: I don't know ANY non resident immigrant that has bought a house. And most of my immigrants friends (from Spain, Portugal, France, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, USA, Germany, Scandinavian countries,..) haven't bought a house and are not planning to do so due to the overpriced market. There are many cultural factors involved though and Asian immigrants tend to buy sooner (apart from Japanese they haven't really experienced any house prices collapse so they are more likely to believe, like NZers, that the prices never go down...).
Seriously what?
Spain: prices in some places down 60% from peak in 2007. Still more than 2.000 families get evicted every year by banks unable to pay mortgage and we all know many lifes ruined because of not getting out of the bubbe on time.
Ireland: prices went down 50-60% from peak in 2007
Japan: prices have been going down continuously since 20 years ago
USA: prices went down after 2007 in most of the cities http://www.think-through.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/08-04-29_c…
So yes.. some of us are convinced NZ is no special in that case and there will be a correction sooner than later so why would people who think like myself buy now if we just want a house to live in and not to speculate with in a short-term investment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble
Spain - Can't print its own currency. So they are stuffed. Forever.
Ireland - bouncing back.
USA - house prices have recovered and then some.
Japan - Shrinking population. So they are stuffed. Forever.
New Zealand is nothing like the above mentioned countries. As this article has shown. If you don't buy a house in the short term, then you will rent for the long term.
Good luck, I might have a rental for you in Browns bay if you're interested.
Many house markets are bouncing back, yes, but when the real productive economy does not produce the expected returns "investors" tend to speculate more in financial markets.
Spain can print Euros through ECB. In fact the only reason house prices don't go down 80% or further is because banks are being rescued borrowing money at low interest from ECB (LTRO and similar) and lending it at higher interest to government/taxpayers through acquiring sovereign bonds, because the ECB cannot lend directly to governments.
Lets wait until the sovereign bonds bubble bursts and we'll see what happens with some of these markets bouncing back.
So far everything has been great for borrowes and house "investors", I admit it, and growth keeps being led by debt and not by productivity increases unfortunately..
But there is a limit in the house prices growth until it starts hurting the real economy by killing demand and creating unemployment (or holes in the financial system due to assets deflation)
I don't deny markets go up and down. What I deny is that in the long term prices will be more expensive than right now in NZ. So again, no reason for first home buyers to jump in now into an overheated market unless we want to play the speculation game (I don't).
NZ is not like Spain. NZ has not the oversupply Spain had (still 2 milllion empty houses in stock). But NZ has the exact same risk Spain or Ireland had: the belief that "house prices never go down" no matter what the household income/house price ratio is. It's about faith, it only takes one shake for a whole generation to be scared off forever.
Do you really think everybody can be richer by selling houses to each other and increasing the price at the expenses of increasing debt?
Which is essentially bringing FUTURE wealth into the present to increase assets prices while expecting to PRODUCE enough in the future to be able to re-pay the debt when the more the assets/debt goes up, the less investors invest in real productive economy.
I'm surprised you're surprised I find it hard to believe :)
My friend you are wrong on so many levels. So let me pull the curtains back and give you a glimpse into New Zealand housing.
Here are the reasons why house prices will not drop in New Zealand for the next 10 years.
1) There is a MASSIVE shortage of houses in Auckland and MASSIVE demand. This will not be addressed before 10 years time. HAHAHAHA - laughable to think it will.
2) The USD is roaring back. This means the NZD is going one way. Down. So our houses will be even cheaper for the Chinese et al.
3) Wheeler can't put up interest rates to protect the NZD's decline because inflation is too low. This means local buyers are still in the property game.
4) Pressure in Auckland will FORCE people to the provinces evetually. So house prices there will go up. On a side note, government should provide tax cuts for companies who establish themselves in the provinces. This will take a tiny bit of pressure of the Auckland housing market.
5) Migration.
New Zealand does NOT have the 'exact same risk' as Spain or Ireland. New Zealand is a country that actually has a healthy economy. New Zealand is a county that actually produces quality goods. Spain and Ireland are way behind New Zealands inovation and business capabilities.
Interesting this idea that massive demand automatically means higer prices. There was massive demand for accommodation in London during the Victorian era but prices were relatively stable because the classical gold-standard was somewhat deflationary. House prices are rising because bubbles are being blown. Asset prices performed spectacularly in Weimar Germany - but that's hardly a blueprint for a happy outcome. Also "oh learned Spurikers" - do a bit of historical due dilligence on where we are likely headed with property taxes.
Interesting also that New Zealand is cited as a country with a "healthy economy" - especially when considering Spain. That country was immensely wealthy at one time, on the basis of gold. Yet such led to the erroneous belief that they didnt really need to do anything. All rather like the idea that houses can somehow magically create wealth! It's a philiosopy of indolence. Gold is really an asset for times when confidence in government is lost. Houses are something you live in. They should not be investments. Then what of Ireland being behind us! Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were being urged to emulate "The Celtic Tiger"? It is actually a fact that New Zealand has never - in a single year - paid its way in the world since Britain went into the EEC in 1973. This is the real reason the country is having to sell off more and more on its inheritance - to try and balance the deficit on the current account.
As to interest rates they cannot rise because central banks everywhere are committed to destroying their currencies via competitive devaluation. Perhaps that's why the Chinese are accumulating all that gold - maybe they are planning to re-monetize it at some stage? That would be the ultimate ironic revenge on the British who effectively forced them off the silver standard and on to the gold standard during Victoria's Imperial height. This would be when things get really interesting for NZ because as I understand the situation (along with a few utter third world basket cases) we have no gold reserves at all. Then none of that matters does it - because we are exceptional.
As gold is obviously so worthless the Chinese (very astute as they are) will doubtless be pleased for an opportunity to get rid of such a "barbarous relic". Therefore, if they (or other nationalities) wish to migrate to New Zealand why don't we require them to deposit a certain quantity of gold per person at The Reserve Bank. If they are non resident - and wish to buy property - perhaps we could require an LMBA Good Delivery Bar or two. After all, we are happy to take unwanted Japanese cars in vast quantity - so why not gold?
Of course, the problem with the above is that it would falter on Sir Thomas Gresham's Law - "bad money chases out good". Bad money, by virtue of quantitative easing, is chasing out capital all over the place and causing Kiwis to have to go ever deeper in to debt to compete for housing. Many literally cannot save fast enough even to stand still relative to historically absurd prices. The hard work and dilligent saving of an aspirant young Kiwi couple can be effectively snuffed out by a keyboard entry in Bejing - which then allows an 'investor' to pay a much greater price for some rubbishy property. So let's ask those hordes of foreign investors to front up with gold and then let's see their reaction?
Why would we take their worthless gold? Anyone in the civilised world who buys physical gold as an 'investment' is an idiot. The gold standard is never coming back. It's a barbaric standard that concentrates wealth in the hand of the few. Good luck trying to raise the poor out of poverty with the gold standard.
Aspiring young kiwis need to be educated about what money really is. They need to get a half decent understanding of MMT. They'll quickly realise what they really should be using their money for.
Exactly, your problem is as a recent migrant and you have not as yet caught the NZ disease of "buy something and sit on it to make a mint rather then work for it disease"
When I tell people I think NZ hosuing can correct 50~75% they just dont believe me.
"a house to live in" which is how I think of it.
This should read record net migration...to 'Auckland'. This is solely an Auckland thing and they can take the good (rampant house price increases for NIMBYs) and the bad (forgot about owning a house unless you get a leg up and/or are in the top 5% of earners). The first thing introduce a regional tax in Auckland to fund their own infastructure.
This is the proportionate equivalent of Britain receiving almost one million migrants per annum. It is a staggering situation with very significant implications for the future - in terms of the both the current Kiwi way of life and political factors. Yet almost no thought nor political debate has been entered into because all attempts to do so meet with the standard charge of xenophobia (which is simply an effective "hand me down" borrowed from Britain's ruling elite and used to stiffle all legitimate discussion).
Mass immigration is constantly cited as being of great benefit to the ecomomy but this is demonstrable nonsense. Let's ask - what's been happening during a major part of the post-war mass immigration drive into the U.S., Europe, & Britain? Real remunerations have been falling! That's why it now takes two plus incomes to achieve less than what one income would have delivered in the fifties and sixties. More and more we see a "folie a deux" between the so-called left and so-called right over this issue. The "left" get their longed for demographic change whilst the "right" get their cheap labour and a depressant effect on the wages of established workers.
The historian will note that it was mass immigration that actually triggered the fall of Rome - yet based on the arguments of Key et al it should surely have delivered a renaissance? Property spurikers might do well to study the ultimate plight of thier worshipped asset class in that greatest of cities - and the astonishing (and rapid) collapse of Rome's population that was not rectified for literally centuries. How so - if mass immigration cures all things and leads to Shangri La?
New Zealand is frankly delusional in believing that it can not only replicate, but can proportionately exceed, what is happening elsewhere without confronting similar challenges. I know we are meant to accept the doctrine of New Zealand "exceptionalism" but this in itself is surely a racist sentiment if we adhere to the view that all peoples are equal. How, for example, are you going to handle a growing Muslim population - which will be disproportionately young - whilst at the same time acting as a suplicant of the United States which has brought such misery (and unnecessary misery) to so many adherents of that faith? How, for example, are you going to handle the situation if conflict between China and the United States develops some decades hence and a dichotomy occurs with a significant proportion of the migrant population over whose "side" we should take?
None of the above matters of course so long as house prices keep going up!
There is a strong linkage between migration rates and houses prices in NZ. RBNZ has previously published graphs showing teh correlation.
The Government or even RBNZ as a macroprudential tool could have been and still could manage the maximum allowable rolling 12 month migration rate to take the heat out of the housing market.
Most of the migration goes to Auckalnd where the increase in house prices is the issue.
RMS reforms are needed but it will take long time as will building the addtional houses.
The housing crisis is about demand and supply. Both need to be addressed.
It is sheer stupidity for NZer's to bid up the price of land (its not the house price going up faster than inflation) & mortgage themselves to the hilt. This is just insanely unproductive.
I think we need more information. Long term includes people comming on an OE/Gap Year (as the Germans call it) Students, and migrants for skilled labour shortages. Most of these long term migrants are not buying in Auckland. No doubt some are, but most will be comming for specified period of time before returning to whence they came.
See
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/analytical_notes/2013…
Have to be careful managing the migration rate though as we dont want to crash the market, just ease it down.
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.