NZ has slowest population growth since the late 1980s

Public Policy / news

Statistics New Zealand says a migration loss contributed to a net growth of just 0.2% in the population in the year to June, while the natural population increase of 24,100 was the lowest since World War II

25th Oct 22, 11:26am by David Hargreaves

Source: 123rf.com. Copyright: atlasbyatlas

A migration outflow in the year to June helped contribute to New Zealand's slowest population growth rate since the late 1980s, while the 24,100 natural increase in the population was the lowest since World War II.

Stats NZ said the overall population (provisionally) increased just 0.2% to 5.124 million in the June 2022 year, with a net migration loss of 11,500 meaning that there was an overall increase in the population of just 12,700.

Population decline actually occurred in five regions – Auckland, Wellington, Nelson, West Coast, and Southland, while many other of New Zealand’s 16 regions experienced lower population growth in the June 2022 year than in 2021.

“While two-thirds of regions experienced population growth in the past year, for most regions this growth was lower than in 2021,” population estimates and projections acting manager Rebekah Hennessey said.

Auckland’s population continued to decline in the June 2022 year, after falling for the first time in June 2021, Hennessey said.

In the June 2022 year, Auckland’s population declined by 0.5%, slightly less than the decline in 2021 of 0.6%.

“While people leaving the bigger cities such as Auckland is not new, internal migration losses have historically been offset by international migration gains,” Hennessey said.

“With international migration losses now occurring, Auckland had an overall population loss of 8,900 people in the June 2022 year.”

Nationally, annual population growth has slowed over the last two years, dropping from 2.2% in the June 2020 year, to 0.4% in the June 2021 year, and now 0.2% in the June 2022 year.

“Slowing regional growth reflects what is happening nationally, particularly annual net migration loss, partly due to the impact of Covid-19 on international migration,” Hennessey said.

“This net migration loss was combined with the lowest natural increase since World War II.”

Auckland had a provisional net loss of 15,000 people through internal migration (people moving between Auckland and other parts of New Zealand). This comes after net losses of 11,300 and 15,400 people in the previous two years. It continues a trend of net flows out of Auckland that began in the late 1990s.

Internal migration was the main driver of population change in 12 of the country's 16 regions, while natural increase was the main driver in the other four. No regions had international migration as the main driver of population change in the June 2022 year.

Two regions – West Coast and Marlborough – experienced natural decrease (more deaths than births) in the June 2022 year. These regions have more older people, with 23% of their population aged 65 years and over. New Zealand overall had 16% of its population aged 65 years and over at 30 June 2022.

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.

107 Comments

by Future | 25th Oct 22, 11:33am 1666650829

Maybe the House Prices are just not that attractive ? Another nail in the coffin.

by Juzz | 25th Oct 22, 11:54am 1666652099

But the spruickers told us the housing market will pump with an influx of immigration. Surely they wouldn't lie to us ;)

by Jesse1 | 25th Oct 22, 11:59am 1666652376

Yes people running away from high house prices and not having kids.

Someone should do a proper study on why our birth rate is in decline. (it's one of those things that we intuitively know but won't be taken seriously until we have hard stats - because we can cover it up with migration)

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 12:12pm 1666653132

Male fertility rates around the world are also plummeting.

"Numerous studies have found that, on average, male sperm counts around the world have more than halved in the past 50 years and are still falling at a rate of two per cent every year.

Reasons for this decline range from our increasingly stressful lifestyles, poor diet and environmental factors."

Why male fertility could be in decline | Daily Mail Online

by Rob Reid | 25th Oct 22, 1:39pm 1666658386

Unfortunately for the environment humans are ridiculously over-engineered in the sperm department, so I don't see it being anywhere near as big a driver of population decline as cost of living is.

by ibas | 25th Oct 22, 3:29pm 1666664951

Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson co-authors of, "Empty Planet have done some good research on this topic.

They actually visit many countries and talk to the women about what is happening. There are some interesting discoveries, apart from the ones you may already know, like for example, how their phones are enabling them to see the freedom and opportunities that other women are having in other parts of the world.

Here's a good video on Youtube about their work.

"The World's Shrinking Population"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPTaV-RcQ&list=PLPnEVd8-sWFqlFXD_RpXW…

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 9:58pm 1666688336

For the last few decades you kept hearing "People shouldn't have kids till they can afford them", so they didn't. Next minute "Why aren't people having children?"

OK seriously, though that is true as well, women who have a choice, have control of their own lives and fertility, choose to have fewer births, start later and some skip the whole process altogether. It has little to do with money, it has everything to do with choice, not all women were born hanging out to have a tribe of children, though a few will.

This is how we can bring the human race's numbers down to more of a balance - with everything, including other species that have as much claim to this planet as we do. Maybe one day we will even come to understand we do not own it.

by GV 27 | 25th Oct 22, 12:15pm 1666653356

Simple question should be: If money and space was no issue, would you have more children or fewer?

I suspect we are creating this outcome ourselves with expensive, small housing and actually baking some of the birth rate reductions into the system, whereas the common refrain is that well-educated women don't want to have kids, or more than two, or whatever.

Have... have we actually asked them whether that's true?

by rolande | 25th Oct 22, 12:35pm 1666654550

They are all considerations, but it's also influenced by age. By the time we settled down and had a couple of kids my wife was 40 and said that's it (and fair enough).

Getting a house probably delayed us a few years, but so did travelling around and going to uni, getting jobs etc.

I guess fertility horizon isn't compatible with the long list of things that people feel they need to do first.

by Kjeldorian | 25th Oct 22, 12:38pm 1666654689

My 2 cents.

(responsible) People want to be in a stable position before they settle down and have kids.

That stable position is increasingly hard to find given student debt & housing debt. Means people are waiting much longer then running into fertility issues.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 12:44pm 1666655050

Agree - we had a baby boom post WW2 as the greatest generation created, by winning the war, conditions of peace and stability. We're currently going through the equivalent of the 1920's-early 1940's where we have financial, geopolitical, and social instability. These aren't the conditions to have children when you don't know if WW3 is going to start tomorrow, nor whether taking on $500,000 debt with rising interest rates is a good idea to own a safe/stable place to raise a family.

The 4th Turning is great read for anyone who wants to explore these issues in more detail using the Straus/Howe generation model.

by Kjeldorian | 25th Oct 22, 12:51pm 1666655512

"These aren't the conditions to have children when you don't know if WW3 is going to start tomorrow, nor whether taking on $500,000 debt with rising interest rates is a good idea to own a safe/stable place to raise a family."

Good thing I don't have a mortgage on my home, an investment property and a second kid on the way!

by meh | 25th Oct 22, 2:18pm 1666660738

Whilst I agree with the reasoning to a certain extent, it doesn't take into account the religious overhang, societal norms, women's lack of body autonomy, or even unconscious fears as a result of population losses from the war.

My parents are boomers born at the end of the 40's. My mother the middle of 13 children and my father the youngest of 9.

There was no contraception back then and the religious overhang forbade it anyway. It was relatively normal to have large families and woman didn't really have the right to say no when their husband wanted sex. Was there also an unconscious requirement to replace lost lives, breed the next generation of workers, children to take over the family farm etc?

Move forward to the 70's when my parents had children and many things had changed via education, women's rights, urbanisation, contraception, economic conditions and possibly more conscious choices around having children.

Move forward to now and many are impeded by economic conditions, demands and expectations. Many are also more selfish as raising children requires many sacrifices to ones lifestyle.

by titans1350 | 25th Oct 22, 5:31pm 1666672292

A great book that I am currently reading. Very scary with what is happening in China at the moment. Also Ukraine too obviously.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 7:48pm 1666680508

Yes I found it an excellent model and it makes understanding the motivations of each generation easier to comprehend. Also each generations fears and insecurities. I can see it within my work colleagues and family as well.

And bigger picture it makes the geopolitical issues we are seeing far more predictable.

Ray Dalio's 'Changing World Order' compliments 'The 4th Turning' quite well. The two theories are quite well aligned and it shows how different generations are shaped as a result of when they were born relative to a long debt cycle starting and finishing - this determines many things including how you think the financial system works - and how prone you might be to confirmation/recency bias - a danger thing if you have only experienced one way of viewing the world for your entire life (this represents boomers and to a certain extent, Gen X).

by Brock Landers | 25th Oct 22, 1:36pm 1666658163

Student debt is another great point.

by hootenany | 25th Oct 22, 12:39pm 1666654795

The birth rate in New Zealand in 2020 was 1.61 births per woman (https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/new-zealands-birth-rate-lowest-on-record…) I think 2.1 is replacement (some children die). I know COVID had an effect but it been below 2 for a while. This is happening in all first world countries. We are not seeing a decline in population yet because old people from the population boom are not dying in significant numbers yet. Women are having children later, which means they are less futile and don't have the time to bring up as many children, or choosing not to have any. Men are less futile too but I think the decline in births mainly a decision, it seems the richer you are the less likely to have children. If you are rich children are a financial burden, if you are poor the a financial benefit, child support in rich countries, workers in poor.

I think this has been studied.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 12:47pm 1666655225

"We are not seeing a decline in population yet because old people from the population boom are not dying in significant numbers yet"

Not yet, but its happening. I know of quite a few in their 60s - 70's who departed for the afterlife in recent years, and the number of funerals for that age bracket appears to be increasing in quantity not decreasing.

I'm going to more funerals, than sending congratulation messages to people for having children in recent years.

by fortunr | 26th Oct 22, 11:51am 1666738306

The housing Ponzi will implode. After that, demographic flows will revert to normal.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 12:01pm 1666652518

Big demographic changes are taking place as the boomer generation enter old age. Half of the boomer generation will die or be deceased in the next decade (or so, approximately....) based upon life expectancy for that generation.

Life expectancy | Stats NZ

And young people aren't having kids, and one of the big reasons if they don't think they can afford to have them. Ironically, the generation not having children are the children of boomers who on odds, will have either lost one of both of their boomer parents now or will do so in the very near future.

To settle and having children people need stability and security, with hope of future prosperity. And my experience is that one generation has decided that it wants to exploit more benefits for itself than it creates for the generations that follow it. And oddly they are unaware that they are even doing it. Despite the depression and anxiety is it/has caused younger generations, who as a result don't feel like they have the conditions around them that would be suitable to procreate.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 22, 12:01pm 1666652488

The biggest reason people aren't having kids is urbanisation. As soon as you give a female an education and the ability to earn their own money, all of a sudden theyre not interested in being baby making machines.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 12:05pm 1666652725

Good point - agree. I think GV mentioned this yesterday about education/financially independent women aren't having children but the uneducated and financial dependent people are.

Not sure what the politically correct solution would be for this, if there is one at all. Morally/ethically it is a tricky subject.

Perhaps we need to be less dependent upon welfare - or the expectation of welfare for everyone.

i.e. personal choices come with responsibility - which appears to be at odds with modern culture where nobody appears to think that they are responsible for any of their own choices/behaviours/actions.

by GV 27 | 25th Oct 22, 12:31pm 1666654286

Our planning systems are good at producing small, expensive housing. It's no wonder that people's family planning is starting to reflect that. If I need two million dollars for a four bedroom, guess how many kids I'm not having.

But for everyone who makes a sensible financial demographic decision around family size, there's three or four who just don't care because someone else is picking up the tab.

If your society makes it prohibitively expensive to have families in the first place, educated women simply get to make the choice that house prices and living cost pressures let them make. They aren't any freer on a self-determinism basis than when they were expected to stay home and raise kids because that was women's work. But that's the beauty of NZ's flavour of capitalism. It makes you feel like you've got a lot more choices than you actually do.

by Rob Reid | 25th Oct 22, 2:23pm 1666661003

The other part of the recipe is contraception. Females were already working in greater numbers from WW2, but the birth rate didn't half in no time until the pill got into the mix. Motivation, plus ability to choose = little families. Yet another thing that transformed the world in the 1960s.

by Inthecentre | 25th Oct 22, 10:13pm 1666689235

I don't that is the case, my mother worked and had access to the pill, but still had 4 children. I think there was a change was led by the baby boomers in the 70s that was more concerned with having things/lifestyle than having lots of children.

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 10:26pm 1666689988

You rmother chose to have 4 children, others chose far fewer or perhaps none at all, because birth control and the choice to use it was and is available.

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 10:22pm 1666689775

Your second reason is far and away the main reason.

by powerupkiwi | 25th Oct 22, 11:59am 1666652394

NZ’s demonisation of immigrants is going to start looking very short-sighted, inside this decade. We’re going to be competing for them with Europe, North America, Australia, and most of Asia.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 22, 12:02pm 1666652565

Yep, you can only see the supply of migrant labour becoming an increasingly hot commodity.

Trouble is, birth rates are falling in many of the traditional areas that export labour.

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 1:28pm 1666657728

Most of Asia?

by powerupkiwi | 25th Oct 22, 2:28pm 1666661316

Yep. The population in north Asia is set to crash. India and Indonesia will be two big exporters of labour, but nowhere near enough to cover falls elsewhere.

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 2:52pm 1666662732

Well, China doesn’t look like a place that will be immigrant friendly, at least right now. And Japan and Korea haven’t been, maybe that might change.

by powerupkiwi | 25th Oct 22, 6:15pm 1666674903

Valid

by Jesse1 | 25th Oct 22, 2:53pm 1666662789

Even India has a rapidly falling birth rate.

by singautim | 25th Oct 22, 3:24pm 1666664651

I expect the same was said by some Māori in 1840.

by ACB | 25th Oct 22, 12:00pm 1666652403

After one of the highest population growth rates in the OECD in the past decade, mainly through very high immigration, and all the stresses that has brought to Auckland in particular, I think this decline, even if temporary, is welcome. The real estate/construction sector won't think so, nor will those vested interests who say GDP growth (not per capita) is all that matters.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 22, 12:04pm 1666652653

Or people that like buying food and that sort of thing.

Actually hard to see much of an upside.

Anyone half competent probably has a job for life though.

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 1:31pm 1666657883

Both up and downsides, for sure.

The lack of staff in hospo is really starting to grate me, as a customer. I am sure it’s even more grating for the business owners.

But our housing, infrastructure and social services have been pushed to breaking point, so welcome relief on those fronts.

by ex socialist | 25th Oct 22, 12:02pm 1666652565

So auckland's population has declined by around 40,000 people, and they have built around 45,000 homes (enough for 110,000 people) - so there is a chance that Auckland's housing shortage will have eased and the prices may fall - didn't expect that.

by Smudge02 | 25th Oct 22, 12:15pm 1666653320

Hardly surprising, with the massive and ever increasing cost of living in NZ the younger generations are choosing to to have only one kid (or no kids) simply to try to purchase their own house and/or have reasonable quality of life.

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 10:28pm 1666690135

Gosh, does that mean all the rich people have lots of kids?

by redcows1 | 25th Oct 22, 12:18pm 1666653529

Good news.

Long may it last and improve.

Now to build a nation on a long term sustainable base and forget the growth for growths sake bollocks.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 12:30pm 1666654212

Lol - we will just replace the lack of New Zealand born children with foreigners who want to live here from third world countries and in the process become more third world ourselves. And this isn't being xenophobic towards any nation or culture, simply a reflection of how the economic model has been built.

We need more tax take from younger working age people to be able to afford the boomer generation superannuation.

by singautim | 25th Oct 22, 3:31pm 1666665075

You do not need more tax take from the young to pay for superannuation.

1. Change the qualification date from 65 to 70 and that problem is solved.

2. Reduce the superannuation - NZ does have a generous pension compared to many other developed countries.

3. Superannuation for citizens only not permanent residents

4. Use actuarial science to demand suitable pre-payment for superannuation from immigrants - this would be zero for a young immigrant but substantial for an elderly immigrant.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 3:38pm 1666665498

Yes but good luck changing superannuation settings with the boomer demographic still a voting powerhouse.

Point 1-2 boomers won't touch - point 3-4 may only have a very marginal influence but good ideas for sure.

by malamah | 25th Oct 22, 4:10pm 1666667400

5. Means testing.

by rastus1 | 25th Oct 22, 4:29pm 1666668585

Too difficult. Requires an army of specialist accountants, tax experts and lawyers. Would just catch ma and pa kettle with no financial complexities.

by singautim | 25th Oct 22, 4:45pm 1666669539

Well it is partially means tested - I would get more if my wife wasn't working and just like all income it is means tested by your tax band.

But if you mean no super if you have been either careful or lucky enough to have savings then you are wrong. You may point out that I have houses in my name [ live in one and get rent from another] so therefore do not need as much superannuation as my neighbour you would be astonished how fast the properties will be transferred to family members.

Lawyers and accountants will be smiling at your suggestion.

by armin-t | 26th Oct 22, 9:49am 1666730961

It's called deprivation of assets and there are already government operated systems that take it into account - https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/life-stages/health-older-people/lon….

by Kiwi Kangaroo | 26th Oct 22, 1:31am 1666701101

Absolutely that is how the Federal Government Aged Pension is managed over here in Australia. It is subject to an asset test or an income test which is determined by Centrelink, whichever is the greater. Below a set asset or income test threshold, either the individual or a couple receive a full pension, and then it works on a sliding scale of part pensions, before maximum asset or income thresholds are passed. Once you pass the maximum asset threshold you receive no pension at all and no assistance with healthcare costs or any subsidies to reduce the cost of medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Owner occupier homes are exempted from both tests and non home owners receive a greater aged pension to help them ameliorate the higher costs of still having to pay rent in older age. As you draw down on your superannuation (KiwiSaver equivalent schemes) and reduce your balances, eventually over time you drop below the thresholds and become eligible for a part aged pension and possibly over the decades a full aged pension, and become gradually eligible for all those golden federal and state health care cards.

If you have any investment properties that yield rental income you will also be assessed on these in the income test. There is a moratorium that is retrospective that does not allow you to sign over investment properties or gift money from your private super funds to family members several years prior to reaching pension age. Centrelink goes back several years and checks. This is to stop wealth transfer from Superfunds from retirees to their children and allow the parents to falsely claim a pension they are not entitled to. It is all tied to Australian Tax office records which are extensive now, eg all dividends paid to shareholders are directly by law reported to the ATO now, no one is trusted to self declare their dividend income. If you have assets in family trusts in self managed super funds these are also subject to regulatory declaration to the ATO. Shares, annuities, Superfund balances , holiday homes, investment properties, even the boat, caravan, and car(s) and household contents are subject to asset test. Furthermore, anyone born after Jan 1st 1957 cannot receive an aged pension in Australia until they turn 67 and then as stated above application for an aged pension is subject to testing by Centrelink.

The average age of retirement in Australia currently sits at 62 and a half years old. So a significant number of retirees are fully self supporting both before pension eligibility age and oftentimes for many years (sometimes decades) after pension age. NZ will eventually transition to a means tested aged pension system and raise the age of eligibility, probably using a similar model to that of Australia. No one thought it would happen here either, but the transition was bought in over a ten to fifteen year period, as peoples super funds grew under the compulsory super contribution scheme in Australia.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 22, 6:27pm 1666675620

Do we need more people to afford the boomer generation though? That sounds a lot like a Ponzi scheme, and we all should know how those end. But what happens to money paid out in Super? Does it magically disappear? Or is it circulated among younger generations who provide older generations with services? And from there, magically around the rest of the community? I guess it just disappears, as we have been trained to believe.

by Nzdan | 25th Oct 22, 7:07pm 1666678065

It just disappears, like every other Government expense. Millions spent on emergency housing, cost blow outs on motorways, it just disappears never to be seen again.

by Palmtree08 | 26th Oct 22, 3:45pm 1666752343

Of course Govt in its generosity immediately claws back a chunk through paye. Should you choose to actually spend the super windfall, another 15% is refunded back for all the long suffering taxpayers that don't like paying retirees. So we immediately return 30%. Where does the 70% go? Rates, insurance healthcare, food etc? Seriously, you believe this money disappears?

by GV 27 | 25th Oct 22, 12:36pm 1666654592

Yes, great news, we've made it prohibitively expensive for New Zealanders to live in New Zealand in almost every way.

Absolutely fantastic development with no downsides.

by Brock Landers | 25th Oct 22, 12:53pm 1666655602

The facts and figures outlined in the article should come as no suprise.

Young kiwis have been systematically priced out of having kids of their own, systematically priced out of living in anything more than dormitory cubicles, and the communities that many grew up in are now totally unrecognisable after unfettered mass immigration was foisted upon them.

Auckland has become a very much less desirable place over the past few decades. Those that can, are fleeing, in search of opportunity or somewhere that still feels like home.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 22, 12:52pm 1666655559

Has Auckland really become less desirable? I remember 20 years ago the last train was at 6pm, no weekend services, the central city was fully covered in tarmac and had very little going for it, buses were infrequent, no hop card, no vector arena, Eden park was terrible, and plenty more things that are much better now.

by GV 27 | 25th Oct 22, 12:59pm 1666655998

The beaches, parks and roads are oversubscribed and you can frequently run into bumper-to-bumper traffic on weekends. The things that make Auckland Auckland are becoming increasingly inaccessible to the people who live here. That's insane.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 1:25pm 1666657504

Killing the goose that laid the golden eggs comes to mind on so many issues in recent times.

People thinking they can take more than they need in order to enrich themselves in the short term, but destroy the thing that had the value in the first place in doing so.

by Advisor | 25th Oct 22, 3:16pm 1666664193

This socioeconomic disaster has coincided with successive governments doubling down on the neoliberal experiment. Both major parties are guilty of econ-speak, defending social failures with meaningless macroeconomic indicators such as unemployment and GDP growth.

Even this virtue-signaling government often addresses the people of NZ as "labour supply" and "consumers".

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 3:39pm 1666665591

Yes it has become so very short sighted.

A real lack of moral integrity and wisdom is present in leadership across institutions.

Nobody willing to say no or do anything radical that might make the future better even if it is politically unpopular in the short term.

by morepork | 25th Oct 22, 1:25pm 1666657529

I thought the traffic was one of the things that made Auckland Auckland.

I remember my aunt complaining about the traffic 25 years ago.

by singautim | 25th Oct 22, 3:34pm 1666665255

20 years ago while waiting at 5am for the immigration office to open the guy next to me said no Londoner is permitted to complain about Auckland's traffic. We have nothing to compare with the London's ring road or the M25.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 22, 1:49pm 1666658951

Traffic 20 years ago was a bit better, but then again not every household had 4 cars like they seem to now. I can remember driving up to wenderholm on the weekends and getting stuck in terrible traffic 20 years ago.

I find the beaches pretty quiet, nothing like most other countries.

yes stuff is less accessible by car, that would have happened regardless of population growth just due to the growing numbers of cars per capita. But it is far more accessible by public transport and the CRL will be a big leap forward.

by Brock Landers | 25th Oct 22, 1:55pm 1666659330

So what you're saying is that twenty years ago every household didn't consist of four adults forced to squeeze into a flatting situation well into middle age?

by GV 27 | 25th Oct 22, 2:13pm 1666660384

And I can remember traffic out at Long Bay when I was a kid in the late 80s and 1990s. It happened, but generally only at certain places.

But as a rule now, unless you're first to the coast in summer on almost any beach from Stanmore Bay to Maraetai, then you aren't getting a spot. We found a better use of our summer days in our 20s was to by-pass the Auckland beaches altogether and head to a Coromandel spot for a dip. Takeaways in Tairua at 4pm and then a bent sprint through the back-roads back to Auckland.

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 2:35pm 1666661746

Totally agree

by Brock Landers | 25th Oct 22, 1:22pm 1666657376

Yeah...

No longer able to aspire to a live in a decent home, raise a family, or be part of a cohesive community.

But can now catch a bus to a crime infested central city to see Blink 182 play at Spark Arena instead of driving to Western Springs.

👍

by ACB | 25th Oct 22, 1:25pm 1666657510

Some things are better such as Public Transport and believe it or not, the CBD, but overall, the city is less pleasant and accessible.

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 2:35pm 1666661709

Hmmmmmm

I lived on Albert Street from 1994-1996, there wasn’t a big inner city resident population but I recall it being pretty vibrant. There was a decent number of cafes, restaurants, bars and clubs (especially in the High Street area). It certainly wasn’t filled with homeless people, convenience stores, and chain cafes, nor ruined by never ending road works.

No Vector Arena? But there were some cool old warehouses, since demolished, that held some pretty cool concerts (eg. Massive Attack).

Give me the central Auckland of the mid 1990s any day of the week.

by singautim | 25th Oct 22, 4:47pm 1666669647

Last train at 6pm? I'm still waiting in North Shore.

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 10:10pm 1666689057

Actually, once women had the choice via birth control, the birth rate started dropping and that was long before rapidly rising house prices.

Truth of the matter is, not all women just want to churn out kids most of their adult life because they can't prevent it. It is just about 100% due to choice and the ability to act on that choice. Show me all the rich families with copious numbers of children

by Inthecentre | 25th Oct 22, 10:45pm 1666691142

Contraception came in a long time before the dropping of the birthrate. The key is more kids means less parental lifestyle and lifestyle expectations are way different to when the birthrate was higher. I was born the late sixties along with 3 siblings. We lived, a family of 6, in a 3 bedroom 90sqm house with a living room the size of a bedroom. We had an extremely limited lifestyle compared to now. No overseas holidays, practically no out of town holidays.

To be fair there are a lot of wealthy people that have large families because it doesn't impinge their lifestyle. It tends to be the middle classes that limit families due to money.

by Hamish | 25th Oct 22, 1:36pm 1666658169

Less smashed avo on toast = more children.

by False economies | 25th Oct 22, 2:09pm 1666660152

Wow who knew the contraceptive capacities of avocados?! :)

by rastus1 | 25th Oct 22, 1:51pm 1666659076

Fear not - our welfare policies are doing their best to encourage those that are idle to boost popn numbers.

by Stuart Mason | 25th Oct 22, 1:56pm 1666659381

and we can bin light rail for the foreseeable future

by Squishy | 25th Oct 22, 2:04pm 1666659844

How can ordinary working people today afford to have children?

by Hamish | 25th Oct 22, 2:13pm 1666660414

The genius ambulance at the bottom of the cliff that is WFF? (Not even)

by KH | 25th Oct 22, 3:16pm 1666664212

I'm keen to see Nrw Zealand with a population of four million. Hopefully less.

by singautim | 25th Oct 22, 3:39pm 1666665578

Agreed. If NZ can and is planning for reduced GDP growth to meet climate change aims then why not a reducing population too?

by Squishy | 25th Oct 22, 7:51pm 1666680694

Also you solve a lot of housing and infrastructure issues.

by Baywatch | 25th Oct 22, 7:51pm 1666680703

Where is the fabled land?

by treadlightly | 25th Oct 22, 4:15pm 1666667740

I am old enough to remember when NZs population was only two and a half million. To my mind it was a far more enjoyable country back then with no traffic congestion and an unspoiled environment.

Just increasing our population for the sake of economic growth without taking into account our quality of life seems a rather futile exercise.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 22, 6:29pm 1666675797

Do not question the invisible hand little man!

by WestieAJ | 25th Oct 22, 4:32pm 1666668774

In order for the lucky few to get the three b's. We need more and more modern day slaves (the ones that pay for their own food and accommodation).

by 7jai | 25th Oct 22, 4:45pm 1666669538

NZ is a great place to retire and have peace and quiet away from the busy world. However, being a young adult seeking for excitement and jobs/wealth/money, it really doesn't offer much in that aspect.

The world is quite a big place outside of NZ. Many have realized that life is too short to always stay idle, and that you can learn/experience/gain new things outside of NZ. Earning potential is much higher in many other places as well as richer life experiences.

NZ will require mass amounts of immigration to cover this shortfall. Unfortunately they won't be able to attract the big investors or "big money". Most of the people do come are those who want to flee their existing country in search for a better, steadier, and peaceful life for themselves and their families.

-7

by Rex Pat | 25th Oct 22, 5:26pm 1666671990

Correct. We encouraged our children to leave NZ. There’s a world of opportunity out there. We are counting down the days until our snouts go in the Super trough. No government would dare touch the settings, even with the next increase.

by Yvil | 25th Oct 22, 5:45pm 1666673141

Well said 7jai, but do not underestimate immigrants no matter their background, people who are brave enough and willing to forego their motherland to for a better life in another country are generally very driven and more likely to succeed.

by Yvil | 25th Oct 22, 5:26pm 1666671982

NZ is so terribly underpopulated, I think 30 million people living in NZ would be about right.

by Harvey W | 25th Oct 22, 6:06pm 1666674417

Agree. 25-30 million. But NZ is not open minded enough for that....

by Brock Landers | 25th Oct 22, 6:08pm 1666674529

Why not 150 million? We could have the vibrancy and economy of Bangladesh.

by Yvil | 25th Oct 22, 6:17pm 1666675027

If Bangladesh is your model sure, IMO it's too populated, I was more thinking about countries like Italy or Spain 25 -30 million in NZ would be a similar density to France or Spain

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 22, 6:32pm 1666675978

That should become interesting when oil and phosphate run out?

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 6:15pm 1666674926

You are trying to provoke aren’t you.

Ridiculuous proposition.

I could see the possibility of 7-8 million, even if I wouldn’t support it. But 30 million….

Where would the extra 25 million live? And what would that mean for our standard of living? What would it mean for our beaches and natural environment?

I will put it back to you, since you are an immigrant. Why did you come to NZ and choose to live here, if you had a problem with our small population? Wasn’t our smallness an attraction? And why didn’t you, or why don’t you, move to a much bigger city and country if you think bigger is so much better???

by Yvil | 25th Oct 22, 6:34pm 1666676043

Well I'm trying to open people's minds, yes. But in all sincerity, I don't see a problem with the population density of say France or Spain, which is equivalent to a population of about 25-30 million in NZ.

I'll try to answer all of your questions above:

The extra people would live throughout the country of course, there are so many small places in NZ, there are also so many empty beaches, I assume you have been in the South Island?

I came her because of woman, to whom I'm still happily married to. I stayed here because of the amazing opportunity to make a fortune through both commercial and residential property investment and the amazing lifestyle such investments provide.

To answer your last question, I already live in the largest city in NZ, personally I would struggle to live in a smaller city, I like having all the choices of endless restaurants, sporting events, concerts, shops etc… This is just me, of course others prefer a smaller place and there are so, so many, many tiny places in NZ.

by Yvil | 25th Oct 22, 6:34pm 1666676068

Now HouseMouse, why don't you tell me why my proposition is ridiculous, is it just because it's beyond your realm of comprehension ?

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 6:48pm 1666676913

You’re a fool, you really are. Have a lovely evening with the lovely fumes from the motorway.

by Yvil | 25th Oct 22, 7:04pm 1666677875

I'm in Bali HM, no fumes or motorway.

I've answered everyone of your questions, yet I ask you a single question and you change the subject, why don't you give me the same courtesy I gave you, and answer my question?

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 22, 6:39pm 1666676392

Of course those people desiring a crowd of humans could always move to the significant part of the planet already crowded, rather than impose their crowd on those that enjoy no crowds?

by HouseMouse | 25th Oct 22, 6:45pm 1666676759

Have I been in the South Island, what a condescending question. My mother was from Christchurch, and I have lived in Queenstown and Nelson.

I don’t have the time or interest to respond really, but you’ve totally ignored as to how you would start getting lots of additional people living in all those towns, when you need work in the first place, other than for retirees of course. It’s totally chicken and egg, it’s nowhere near as simple as you have made it appear.

I like living in big cities too, anywhere smaller than Auckland is too small. Auckland is already a bit small for my liking, but it’s fine.

But that’s a totally different thing to your proposition.

by Independent_Observer | 25th Oct 22, 7:44pm 1666680266

"I stayed here because of the amazing opportunity to make a fortune through both commercial and residential property investment and the amazing lifestyle such investments provide"

Lol - if you want to understand why Yvil wants to add another 25 million people to the country, it's to expand his property investment empire. Which is consistent with many other immigrants I've talked to and you see on the property investment pages of Facebook! Move to NZ and start up a property investment empire to live of the labour of those who were born here (and are too gullible to see what is going on - and no I'm not xenophobic...but when you have a housing crisis...this isn't the solution to the problem!)

Be great for the country though Yvil....how many rent slaves would like...a few thousand for you personally....or were you thinking about a higher number?

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 10:17pm 1666689454

So, for someone who wants to see tens of millions of people in this country, how much did you contribute to it via numbers of children?

by Baywatch | 25th Oct 22, 7:53pm 1666680819

Of course you would Yvil..the motel would be fully booked each night

by Yvil | 26th Oct 22, 6:56pm 1666763808

It's already full every night, thanks for your concern.

by False economies | 25th Oct 22, 10:17pm 1666689459

Great trolling Evil, chapeau!

Can you detail where you think 25 million extra people would live without destroying our ability to produce food?

by False economies | 25th Oct 22, 10:19pm 1666689580

Bloody auto correct, has a mind of its own ;)

by PocketAces | 25th Oct 22, 10:59pm 1666691963

I've called in autocrap so many times that whenever I begin to enter it now, autocrap is the first option offered me