New Zealand's population increased by nearly 100,000 people in the year to June, it's biggest annual increase ever, with most of the rise coming from migration.
Statistics New Zealand estimates this country's population grew by 97,300 in the year to June, taking the total population to an estimated 4,693,000.
Migration had by far the greatest impact on population growth, accounting for 69,100 (71%) of the total increase, compared to the natural population increase (the excess of births over deaths) of 28,200 (29%) over the same period.
That meant the country's population grew by 2.1% in the year to June, which was high by historical standards.
"The last time we experienced population growth over 2% was in 1974, and before that, at the peak of the baby boom in the 1950s and early 1960s," Statistics NZ senior manager Jo-Anne Skinner said.
According to Statistics NZ's figures, this country's population growth has more than quadrupled over the last four years, driven primarily by surging migration.
In the year to June 2012, the country's population increased by just 24,100, which was entirely driven by the natural increase in the population of 31,500, which was reduced by a net loss of 3200 people due to negative migration flows, with more people leaving the country than coming to it during that period (see table below)..
Since then, the natural increase in the population has drifted steadily downwards, ticking up slightly in the year to June.
But the natural increase of just 28,200 in the year to June 2016 still remains well below the natural increase of 36,200 that occurred in the year to June 2010.
The high level of migration also means that the population is becoming slightly younger, on average, with the median age of all residents falling from 37.6 years in 2013 to 37.1 years now.
That's because nearly 80% of the net migration gain was from people aged under 35.
Statistics NZ estimates that 20% of the country's population (921,500 people) is aged under 15 years, 65% (3,073,200) are aged between 15 and 64 years, and 15% (698,400) are aged 65 and older.
76 Comments
Exactly what New Zealand needs at this time considering the fast ageing population,low birth rates below replacement level & 40,000-50,000 Kiwis that moved to Australia annually over the last 15 years.
The median age of Pakeha is 41, Asian is 30, Maori is 24 & Pasifika is 22.
Asians,Maori & Pasifika all now have higher median birth rates than Pakeha.
The Australian population grew by the total population of New Zealand in just the last 13 years. 28% of the Australian population or 6.6 million people is foreign-born which is the highest in the Developed world.
New Zealand is expected to have more people over 65+ than under 15 within the next 2 decades.
Kiwis are the second highest nationality per capita living overseas just behind the Irish. 1 million+ Kiwis live overseas & 650,000 Kiwis live in Australia which is 15% of the total NZ population.
Migration to New Zealand needs to be spread out equally across all of New Zealand.
Ever stopped to consider that birth rates are below replacement because the kiwi population have been priced out of housing (and children)?
Not that the world needs more people anyway. Quite the opposite and it's not the responsibility of New Zealand to facilitate the overbreeding of the rest of the planet.
haha, can't win eh? there is always an argument for and against ... but increasing population is a good thing ..right? its a No brainer ... especially if you assume that 1/2 of the immigrants are highly qualified people contributing to the country's advancement -- Right?
Why are we so pessimistic all the time - what happened to seeing the bright side of things for a change?
Side effects? heaps, but nothing we cannot tolerate -- just look at the big picture -- i say it is great to have more people and the rate of increase is not disastrous as the title of this article is suggesting ....
just wait a few years. As soon as the bubble burst and unemployment increases and salaries decrease MANY will flee NZ and others won't want to come back.
Don't worry and take advantage of immigration until then.
And by taking advantage I don't mean ripping them off and selling them houses and farms..
I mean collect more taxes for a better education for NZers, invest in sectors that can survive crisis better (industry rather than services), and so on.
New Zealander's would benefit if the population reduced. If we have say a million or less we would each be better off economically, the place would be great to live in, and the world would be better off.
Endlessly planning for more people is not a game that will work out.
Smaller families, delayed reproduction, both easily gained when women are fully educated and participating in society, and yes it does age, but we have technology and machinery taking jobs, the taxes they pay can support............... oh. But that is how it could work
Simple Dave. A stable or reducing population simply has a different age profile than a ballooning one. But the difference is not a problem if you think it through. Increased cost of ageing is balance by decreased cost of education etc. The cost of extra infrastructure for ballooning populations can't be met right now. A stable population eliminates that cost. A small population spread over the same area means they will live in the best places.
And there is no great problem with the aged anyway. Sure thing we all die of something, but the reality is that most people age and die without years of dependency.
A population that is more weighted with older people has just different weightings of demand. But not a problem.
How? If the population reduced New Zealand would end up with a very much much older population with the remaining youth having to carry more of the taxpayer burden of keeping Government pensions sustainable for the very fast growing elderly demographic in New Zealand.
How would reducing the population benefit Kiwis? The South Island has a population density similar to Tasmania. Only 24% of the total NZ population lives in the South Island.
Japan has low birth rates & fast ageing population which isn't benefiting them. A country with the biggest debt to GDP percentage of any country in the world.
The NZ Government is already having difficulty of keeping NZ Government pensions sustainable.
Pakeha are still declining in median birth rates while Asians,Maori & Pasifika have higher median birth rates than Pakeha.
33.4% of the NZ population lives in Auckland. More people live in Auckland than in the entire South Island. Only 1 million people live in the South Island which is the bigger of the 2 main Islands of New Zealand.
Sydney has a population of 5 million people which is bigger than all of New Zealand. New Zealand has a total population smaller than most cities around the world.
New Zealand has a landmass the size of the United Kingdom with a population the size of Ireland.
NZ is already a great place to live in compared to most of the World when you look at the social & economic stats of New Zealand.
there would be a lot of us living in the bush , over 60%
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/poll-kiwis-want-to-cut-immigration-20…
Very silly Eco bird. Maybe with fewer people around we would choose to live in a warm substantial house, on ideal site beside a beautiful beach or lake. We could afford it because we were not paying insane costs of infrastructure growth, and price competition for the best places would not be severe.
After a point all adding more people does is mean that there is more competition for resources and land. How you think this will improve quality of life is beyond me. Look at most 3rd world countries and you'll find the vast majority have very high populations compared to their resource bases which is no coincidence.
To address another point, the South Island also has a large mountain range called 'The Southern Alps' therefore a fair amount of land is mountainous so it's a bit disingenuous to claim it has 'lots of land' based on land mass alone, unless you see building houses at 2000m on mountains an easy task.
In regards to Japan, they are severely overpopulated when compared to their land mass and resource base. Japan has little natural resources and are completely dependent on importing resources to keep their lights on. If world events ever led to a supply disruption they'd be toast.
We need to move past the retarded notion that 'growth is good at all costs'. Will you be cheering for 'more growth' when you are diagnosed with cancer? Unfortunately economic thinking prevails over rational thought and common sense. There are hard physical limits exist in this world and clearly an ever growing population is not a sustainable plan. The frustrating thing is that this kind of thinking leads to the following pattern:
1) Population increases.
2) We need more people to pay for increase.
3) Population increases.
4) We need more people to pay for increase. (Repeat ad infinitum until country becomes overpopulated sh*thole)
We are lucky that NZ is underpopulated, this is the reason why quality of life is viewed as being so good - i.e. you're not competing with 50 million other people for a house, job or resources. Why people want to throw all this away to become like almost every other country on the planet is beyond me.
I'm not talking very high populations though like India or China. The USA has a population of 324 million people (3rd largest country by population in the world) yet I wouldn't exactly call it a 3rd world country.
NZ isn't expected to reach 5 million people until 2020.
Russia isn't a Developed country with a small population density of (8.24) & is largest country in the world by landmass.
Most 3rd world countries are that way due to very major corruption within their own Governments enriching themselves not because of their population size as 3rd world countries too also have very small populations.
Think of Zimbabwe for example it was doing well economically as Rhodesia with a economic boom in the 1970's until Mugabe took over & its now become a shithole.
Severely overpopulated? Most of Japan's population just lives in Honshu. Japan is the most technological advanced country on Earth with a population of 120 million people. Hokkaido has a population similar to Scotland or Norway.
Most 3rd world countries are fast developing & have very strong GDP growth.
I can think of many 3rd world countries with small populations Vanuatu,Solomon Islands,Papua New Guinea,Fiji,Republic of the Congo, Guyana,Botswana,Namibia,Mauritania,Gabon,Djibouti,Liberia,Guinea-Bissau,Lesotho,East Timor,The Gambia,Equatorial Guinea,Swaziland,Jamaica,Libya,Suriname.
A country being 3rd world or Developed comes down to how corrupt the Government of that country is not its population size.
The more people thing does not have a fullstop, the system that relies on growing population ALWAYS relies on growing population, there is no optimum number, look at how many Japan got to and now is failing in that system. It is a totally different way of thinking and doing things that can solve this problem, perhaps if we embrace that we have to reduce not increase human numbers on the planet, then we can rely on technology and machinery to fill the gaps that an ever increasing population might have. This is where the UBI comes in, now.
The USA has an enormous landmass.
Not long ago people were saying all would be well in NZ when we reached 4 million people, now that's in the rear view mirror and I'm 'sure' things will be better once we reach '6 million'... Or '10 million'... Or '20 million'...
Japan is horrendously overpopulated. Shut off food imports and how many people do you think their island would naturally support? A heck of a lot less.
Ah GDP, the be all and end all of the human existence. How dare I question it, blasphemy!
I think we have quite different definitions of overpopulation. I use the definition of overpopulation as being more people in an area than the area can support indefinitely (carrying capacity), you seem to frame your argument on economics terms rather than long-term sustainability. We're not going to agree.
@ Crow 22, Zimbabwe has always been a shithole if your black.
The 3rd World countries you mention with low populations eg Vanuatu, Solomon islands have superior lifestyles accept as they get access to TV and education there cultures are damaged.
Good old Western World loves to destabilize and then plunder their resources. Our forbears used religion and alcohol. Oh gosh, we still do that as well.
This rate of immigration might be OK if:
a) The whole process wasn't riddled with fraud, corruption and scams
b) We were addressing a real skill or labour shortage
c) We were capable of building the accommodation and infrastructure necessary to absorb the increase.
That's three out of three epic fails.
Yes, particularly in times of increasing stress (which is increasing around the world). This behavior is a well known human trait that has observed across a multitude of studies. Multiculturalism will work in times of abundance but once scarcity rears its head it's a different matter.
Yes, it then comes down to some fundamental law of nature, some devilish calculation, that amounts to, who is more important, my children or yours? Unfortunately many societies around the world, most notably in the West, have decided that having children makes them uncomfortable thus largely taking them out of the game.
@ sharetrader Thank you for sharing this link ....
How many chinese?, Well no one knows and no one will tell you .... that report on Newshub is another piece of aimless work designed to agitate people and grab attention to push them blindly behind a certain agenda ..without realising the damage they could do to all.
If you have noticed Andrew Little's remarks about employment and how shallow they were as well as the shallowness of the debate in the chamber you would understand why these people will not succeed in the next elections by keeping their childish behaviour and throwing BS around as if they are talking to possums .... how many kiwi engineers and IT specialists have NZ got unemployed?? how many researchers or highly qualified scientists do we have on the DOL ....how many qualified trades people do we need NOW? --
Irresponsible remarks ( like get off your butt and build some houses!!) are tolerable when they comes from children and illiterates, not from Polys and the head of the "Opposition" what a circus ?
A constructive opposition is essential and useful to the country and they will command our respect, but a childish bullying lot wont even get the possum's vote ! or shall i say Will Only get the possum's votes ...
If huge numbers of people are coming in then their backgrounds are important. Your average Kiwi is trained from birth to fit into NZ society while other people are not. Some will be very compatible while others less so. That said, though, you are right, that their origin doesn't matter too much if there are not too many. It is a matter of scale. Even the best and brightest of folk should be limited. Imagine, as a thought exercise, if you imported a million super intelligent and super hard working people into NZ who were distinctly different physically and culturally. The effect could be negative for the native people who would find themselves becoming an under-class tempting them to support a military coup to restore some balance. This is a fairly regular happening thing in history.
NZ Treasury itself was not sure if the benefits exist of high immigration.
extracts below:
"More work is required to assess the potential net benefits of an increase in immigration as part of a strategy to pursue scale and agglomeration effects through increased population, or whether a decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth going forward."
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10
Abstract
New Zealand immigration policy settings are based on the assumption that the macroeconomic impacts of immigration may be significantly positive, with at worst small negative effects. However, both large positive and large negative effects are possible. Reviewing the literature, the balance of evidence suggests that while past immigration has, at times, had significant net benefits, over the past couple of decades the positive effects of immigration on per capita growth, productivity, fiscal balance and mitigating population ageing are likely to have been modest. There is also some evidence that immigration, together with other forms of population growth, has exacerbated pressures on New Zealand's insufficiently-responsive housing market. Meeting the infrastructure needs of immigrants in an economy with a quite modest rate of national saving may also have diverted resources from productive tradable activities, with negative macroeconomic impacts. Therefore from a macroeconomic perspective, a least regrets approach suggests that immigration policy should be more closely tailored to the economy's ability to adjust to population increase. At a minimum, this emphasises the importance of improving the economy's ability to respond to population increase. If this cannot be achieved, there may be merit in considering a reduced immigration target as a tool for easing macroeconomic pressures. More work is required to assess the potential net benefits of an increase in immigration as part of a strategy to pursue scale and agglomeration effects through increased population, or whether a decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth going forward.
Thank you for sharing this Joe....OMG !!
you see this kind of empty rhetoric makes my blood boil especially when it comes from an important dept in Gov....
I have first hand experience of the waves of immigrants which landed in NZ circa 1994 - 1996 .. most were South Africans, Middle eastern, Indians, in addition to Brits and Aussies -- almost the majority of these people and their spouses or families were highly qualified university graduates and skilled people in their fields - they had a long struggle with being accepted by the NZ businesses and the typical kiwi mind set - but almost all started from scratch and build their way up - fast ... they all came on a skill category point system which almost only let in well english spoken scientist, doctors, Engineers, and highly qualified trades and other experienced people out of a specified skill list -- the total numbers taken then would exceed 80,000 --
20 years on - every single one of these people not only contributed a life time of benefits and knowledge to NZ but payed taxes on high wages and income, raised their families and created another hard working generation of kiwis, built businesses employing hundreds of people, Built and developed properties, and have all done well for themselves because they are hardworking people. Auckland city was almost a tasteless place in those days .. just look at how vibrant it became now....
the following is one of the reasons why NZ is so backwards compared with the rest of the first world ::( their words , not mine)
" More work is required to assess the potential net benefits of an increase in immigration as part of a strategy to pursue scale and agglomeration effects through increased population, or whether a decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth going forward."
so, They want to research which comes first the chicken or the egg? , immigration or infrastructure? Does any one really believe that " decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth " ?? are they for real? where is the growth? we have 100,000 extra people pouring billions in the economy and the growth is hardly 3% -- As if lower interest rates and lower FX is related to the head count of the country ... Jesus!! -- isn't any one paying attention that the new comers are all productive people and they are not going on the DOL as soon as they land unlike most of our school leavers ?
My point is, that if Treasury cannot reseach what has actually happened in their own backyard under their own eyes in the last 20 years and learn and analyse it, then they are utterly hopeless people and should be granted early retirement.
Someone has to tell them that the wheel has been invented long time ago and there are few of them here.
You're a naive idiot if you trust the qualifications from a third world country. I've met a lot of migrants, it's hard not to. You don't need to grow the population just for the fun of it. Nor can you claim that 'vibrancy' is a better social trait than cohesion, and a sense of all being kiwis. Not a sense of being overwhelmed by an onrush of immigrants, with no end in sight. You just want to flood the country with the worlds population, and destroy what we have here. Our piece of paradise, not for sale.
One of the most beautiful things about NZ was its low population. As the population
density rises it becomes more violent, congested and unpleasant to live in. More mouths to feed and more people competing for limited resources. Anyone wanting to live in a high density area should move to India.
This is the foolish thing. We export primary produce, what effect will increasing internal consumption have on our exports? We also are lucky (and proud) that 80% of our electricity is renewable (mainly hydro), what will we happen to this number when the population and electricity consumption increases?
Unless God or someone blows the whistle and says alright humans everybody back to where they came from or a descended from, eg, British back to UK, Americans back to trump,Indians back to India !Asians back to Asia multi cultures not working. Then NZ would belong to the Maori So only they really have a right to complain about immigrants.
As someone commented earlier one of the best things about NZ was the low population. In a short time I have seen that change and if it continues I don't see that as a positive for NZ. We are "clean" and "green" because we don"t have a huge population. More and more people are certain to change that. Isn't it obvious!
People are not asking for zero immigration. They are asking for a reasonable immigration level which can be adjusted when necessary.
Immigration for immigration sake is not a good enough excuse. In the 90s nz didn't have the highest house prices relative to incomes in the world. In the 90s gdp per capita wasn't at a stand still.
Also we need to ensure we are getting highly skilled immigrants. People I know in tech struggle to find candidates. There is also the issue of the fact large numbers come over on parent visas which seems crazy when we already have an ageing population. Why bring in more pensioners.
Eco bird are you part of Nationals PR spin machine ?
Not at all Joe, ... I am actually a real Joe Bloggs you might say ... do not like politicians or parties .. i am a pragmatic person and interested in economy and good life after a long working life ... I call it as it is ... Don't have bosses , don't need money ....People interpret my comments depending on their affiliation and what they like to hear ... you will notice that I can be critical of the NATs at times when they are wrong ...
Oh, and I was a labour voter for years ..lol
If migration flows are too great from too many diverse sources there is grave danger of a loss of identity. A common theme on the interest.co.nz threads is the loss of the Kiwi traditional way of doing things (like everyone owning their own house) and yet anyone seeking to preserve or restore that state is accused of being not Kiwi in their thinking and attitude as it would necessarily require some degree of exclusion. It is quite an odd situation we are in really.
The other day this site linked to The Most Reputable Countries in the World which had the following list of top ten countries:
Sweden
Canada
Switzerland
Australia
Norway
Finland
New Zealand
Denmark
Ireland
Netherlands
It would seem to me to make sense to analyse the common factor that these countries have and try and preserve whatever it is that puts them at that high level. At least be fairly careful to keep the proportions, of whatever it is, roughly the same. These countries are where they are today because of the generally stable and sensible milieu found there that developed as a result of a historical process. Massive immigration is not likely to improve countries that are already highly refined although it will definitely improve the lot of the migrants, at least the first waves. It would only be a win/win situation if migration was carefully managed and not allowed to get out of control. If 20 million people were encouraged to emigrate to NZ it would become an entirely different country.
"It would seem to me to make sense to analyse the common factor that these countries have and try and preserve whatever it is that puts them at that high level."
That's dangerous thinking! Check your list again, friend. Remember, society is not simply a matter of policy and numbers.
I think this trend of replacement will most certainly be allowed to get out of control. Not only will new demographics replace generations of Kiwis, they will be bring new cultural issues that will later on translate to a different political atmosphere (especially one that accepts even more immigrants).
You said "anyone seeking to preserve or restore that state is accused of being not Kiwi in their thinking". Welcome to the 21st century for Western Europeans. This is a result of the dominant ideology of our time. The managerial liberalists do not care about preserving local culture, infact they often see it as an intolerant obstacle to the maximisation of efficiencies in the global economic system--free movement of labour and capital.
National identity is now treated as a stage for the expression of a liberal, multicultural global political ideology, nothing more. This top-down identity embraces tolerance, openness, inclusiveness, respect for individual freedom, and multiculturalism. Everything else is largely arbitrary. Follow this logic long enough and you get the gross levels of cultural self-abnegation on display in Sweden, whose stewards have for years been desperately trying to give away the rightful cultural and economic inheritance of ethnic Swedes to alien cultures from the middle east and africa. The results speak for themselves.
Remember, society is not simply a matter of policy and numbers.
Exactly, those ten countries are following the Nordic model of social democracy or something very similar to it. Has anyone managed to replicate it without a significant Nordic element in their populations? Am I allowed to ask that question?Japan possibly? An Asian country that developed a love for all things Western European. It is almost like what has happened is the model hasn't exported to other countries other than through massive colonialism (Aus, NZ, C) so the challenge is on to prove that it still works when the previous population that made it work becomes a minority.
You have improved your arguments Zach of Epsom
Two well reasoned responses
Has the mothership inserted new circuitry ?
Seriously hope youve taken the chance sell down a few houses
Youll be wishing in the not too distant future if you have not
I shouldnt be too concerned about migrant numbers folks
I've watched migrants use NZ as their stepping stone to better bigger cities in the world for decades
With over 1 million kiwis living overseas NZ needs to consider why migrants will stay long term if they can acquire residency in NZ to use for their next stop elsewhere.
NZ is a lovely place but it will remain the end of the world, exotic but still detached by distance & timezone
My advice sell up and get out
Why suffer in congestion and pretend youre living in Gods Own ?
I'm aware my comments may come across as those of someone suffering from a split personality. This is because I try to stay within the rules and to a certain extent the spirit of this web site. I'm opposed to general socialism that is blind to identity and seeks general equality and will thus lock horns occasionally with people who promote that. I'm also opposed to Libertarians who see everyone as a blank sheet with no mind to historical processes and the influences, good and bad, that history has. I'm also aware that my politics and philosophy (Nouvelle Droite) are currently in the minority so I have to play the game and follow rules and take advantage of capitalism in order to prosper and survive.
All I can do is point out things like a court jester, like hey, those ten countries, can you see what they have in common?
Another thing occurs to me about the top ten in the list, they are considered the most reputable. It is probably a fact that many in our society don't really want a good reputation. It's not a driving force for them as it is for the "male, pale and stale" people although I dare say they enjoy the benefits such as effective social welfare.
Humm. Plenty of Brits looking to move out here.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/emigrate-to-australia-or-new-zealand-six-f…
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.