Asian, Maori and Pacific people the fastest growing population groups in this country

The face of this country is changing, quite literally, with New Zealand's Asian, Pacific and Maori populations expected to grow more quickly than the pakeha population, according to Statistics NZ's latest population projections.

Statistics NZ expects all ethnic populations to grow between 2013 and 2038 with the Asian population growing the fastest.

"The broad Asian ethnic group will increase the most over the period," Statistics NZ said.

"This group's population is projected to rise from 540,000 in 2013 to 1.2-1.4 million in 2038.

"The Pacific ethnic group is also expected to rise significantly, from 340,000 in 2013 to 530,000 - 650,000 in 2038.

The Maori population is expected to pass one million by 2038.

The European or "other" population is expected to grow more slowly, rising from 3.3 million in 2013 to 3.6 - 4.0 million in 2038.

This country's total population is expected to increase from 4.4 million in 2013 to 5.2 - 6.3 million in 2038.

That means the European or "other" ethnic group's share of the total population will drop from 75% in 2013 to 66% in 2038.

"The European or "other" population is growing, but not as fast as other ethnic populations," Statistics NZ population statistics manager Peter Dolan said.

 

 

"The Maori, Asian and Pacific populations are growing faster because of their younger age structures, combined with higher birth rates or migration."

The Asian ethnic group is expected to pass the number of Maori people by 2023 and make up 22% of this country's population by 2038.

Maori are expected to make up 18% of the population by 2038.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a 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.

47 Comments

Based on the higher projection and assuming it maintains the same size in proportion to the rest of the country, Auckland will hit 2m people in 2038. Better open up some land to build houses for everyone and set aside several billion for the infrastructure improvements needed.

up
18

And prove just how utterly stupid we are and concrete over all the best growing land.

up
18

My point was tongue-in-cheek. When are going to have a national discussion on population and its benefits/impacts?

You have to put a tongue-in-cheek emoji in. No, I don't know how.

Too right, cause I see few benefits and many serious impacts.

Our national discussion was the election - the migrants voted National

up
26

I sincerely hope the world has its head well and truly around that we need to REDUCE our numbers around the world long before this country's population reaches over 6 million. I am sick and tired of this complete unwillingness to acknowledge this and start doing things that will allow the human race to gradually reduce via education, family planning and women having full control over their own lives and reproduction.

more reasons to become Catholics

We also need to have a conversation about standard of life as people age, retirement homes won't like it mind.

I'd rather we embraced the Ulysses club motto "Grow old disgracefully".

I'd put that one in at a high standard of life to be fair.

Of course, I should have known that.

Yes - anyone who is interested should check out the

overdevelopment overpopulation overshoot book ... you can download it as a pdf ... brilliant photos but doesnt make for pretty viewing
https://populationspeakout.org/uncategorized/download-pdf/

up
10

Why bother sending over the military when you can take everything in tact with a bit of toilet paper money.

22% is low for Asians. Should be around 50%.

No it's should be 99% - 50% is a "C" grade and anything less than an "A" is a fail (and a disgrace to the family)

Should people be categorized into RACE or CULTURE?

Is it what you look determine what is inside you or what you believe/honour/respect/value determine what is inside you?

If NZ government or the all western governments are smart enough, create something that all its citizens and residents will believe, honour, respect and value.

You are welcome.

xingmowang I agree.

Also, if we are talking the growth of population by direct immigration then sure, we can say X number of people from X country but if we are talking about growth within NZ, NZ born children, then they would be Kiwi with Asian ancestry not Asians, Kiwi's with Pacific Island ancestry or Kiwi's with European ancestry etc.

My daughter's were born in the UK, but both have NZ citizenship by descent. But one of their parents could easily have been from Pakistan or Zimbabwe (just random examples but both countries have citizens who have emigrated to the UK over the past 30 years) but were a UK resident. Would they go into the stats as Kiwi European or Kiwi Pakistani?

Yes they do get reclassified as Pakeha (NZ European) in many parts, (residency applications etc), but defined by how they look in other applications. The census has a lot wrong in that manner. Which is why so many tick other with the other being "New Zealander". Generations of other ethnicities mixed in NZ yet we all have to pick the cookie cutter slot that resembles a skin colour regardless of culture, ancestry, and family. Adoptive children have an even more difficult quandary. The child can be non Maori to start, the parents are non Maori, the adoptive parents are non Maori yet the child can be classified as Maori at the point of adoption because of one ancestor somewhere back. Friends did this to give the child more opportunities. I also have a Maori born and bred friend with parents who are Maori who is as pale as the driven snow with blond hair, (genes and medical conditions do play games on the body). Yet for every application they are Maori but get treated like a Pakeha, (which is normally with less discrimination from others). Another friend was part of a long history from the early Chinese settlers in NZ but followed no Chinese customs, and spoke no Mandarin. So either ethnicity, primary languages, medical category should not matter as much or we need a few more questions in the census to better define the people of NZ and identifying those who live here. Just pigeon holing ethnicity based on one or two physical attributes, or one ancestor somewhere back is an extremely flawed system when you have a culture as mixed as ours is.

Pacifica you are so right. I was going to write about the 50/50 Kiwi/Chinese boy I know and the Samoan woman adopted by a Pakeha Kiwis at birth and the Samoan looking girl who never met her Samoan father but was born and brought up in Darwin by a Melanesian/Aussie mother. The most kiwi person I know has 75 years of NZ experience and just happens to be 100% ethnic Chinese.
When there are so many exceptions in every ethnic category why have categories? Can we all just be Kiwis all-sorts?

What people believe/honour/respect/value IS culture.
The census does not record culture only ethnicity (race for want of a better word).
A couple of censuses ago many people wrote New Zealander for ethnicity as a way to show their cultural identity as separate from European, Asian etc.
It would be controversial but I think a cultural identity question with New Zealander as an option could be useful in the census (Clearly people could have multiple cultural identities).

Will be a case of too many Wong's and not enough Wrights:).

Wong answer.

land of the wrong white cloud

Auckland's projected population growth is a big issue for NZ's future. Auckland currently has 1.6million people and is growing at the rate of 50,000 people per year.

By contrast, Houston (Texas) currently has 1.7million people and is America's fourth to largest city. Yes, you read that correctly: having just 100,000 more people than Auckland makes Houston America's fourth largest city.

So Auckland has become a very large city - even by American standards.

You can't compare Houston city to Auckland region. Houston metro region is 6.4 million. Houston city is 2.3 Million, and the old Auckland city council area is in neighbourhood of 0.6 - 0.7 million.

Here's the thing; you shouldn't compare our Auckland city against the US standard.
In China there are over 160 cities with more than 1 million population (about 80 with more than 2 millions). In 2025, there will be 221 cities with more than 1 million. So comparatively, Auckland is just another hick town!

Auckland is 100% Auckland and China will ahve 221 100% non-Auckland cities. Why compare - do you compare your parents with other parents or your kids with other peoples children?

All the time. My dad could beat up your dad etc.

Not sure where you got that info from, Houston has a population of about 2.3 million. But it is still a reasonable comparison given the amount of land surrounding it and the amount not surrounding Auckland

The word 'city' is one (of many) that, in common use, has a number of possible meanings - hence the need, if one is looking to impart information or build an argument, to be specific about what 'meaning' one has in mind. Metropolitan Houston has a population (2016) of 6.7 million - and an area of some 26,000 km2. In metropolitan population terms, Auckalnd doesn't make the US Top 30 (coming in around 38th). What is the point of your post?.

Correct, USA City or area populations are hard to work out from stats. This is because even the biggest cities are divided into counties , and many (most?) have sheriffs!
A bit like how There used to be Auckland city ,Manukau city etc.

tothepoint,
Your city size statistic is seriously flawed. The 1.6M size for Auckland is measuring the population of the metropolitan area. I'd recommend comparing to the metropolitan area populations in the US, where Auckland would come in around 38th or 39th in the rankings when placed in the US rankings. In other words, a sleepy little backwater in the grand scheme of things if you wish to use population as your metric. The entire population of NZ wouldn't even make it into the top ten in the US...

See this link for details https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

tothepoint,

I've an anecdote that may provide some comparison value for you in terms of population size and relative importance. A couple of years ago, I went to China to participate in an event. On the way to the venue, we went through the typical rather urban development area, and when we got close to the venue, the area next to the big river was just bare ground. At the side of the river was a rather large flood control levee. After talking with some of the locals, it turned out that the levee had explosives buried inside it in case of a serious flood. If they were to get one of those 100 year floods, they deemed it better to blow out the levee and flood the local small town of ~1M people to save the ~100M metropolitan area that was downstream on the river. Hence the lack of any construction near the levee for that location.

Tell me again as to how important that Auckland 1.6M population is on a global scale?

That does mean we will have even more drugs like meths imported from China?

I think we're waiting on a full house - http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/91996550/most-wanted-chinese-fugitive-... we've only got 4 of the most wanted, which for an international city is pretty poor really, although we're smashing the Aussies which is good to see.

up
12

Shouldn't be too hard to find them, they are probably members of the National Party!

they should not join the national party they may be sold out to head office

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/national-party-mp-jian-ya...

After talking about the population growth of four groups (European or "other", Asian, Maori, and Pacific, the article offers the following population percentages for 2038: European or "other", 66%; Asian, 22%; Maori, 18%. Which prompts the following three questions: 1. Where is the Pacific percentage? 2. Why is there no explanation as to why the total percentage is >100? 3. Where is the rest of the article?

Given the high proportion of Maori and Pacific Islanders in jail or unemployed, this is a frightening trend.

It's a consequence of the masses who voted for a 9 year program of the forces that produced that trend and the main block of those voters are wanting more of the same so get used to it

Not if Winston has his way.

Winston is a fizzer. See how he buckled when an indian boy asked him "why are you against migrants" and why is it only Asian migrants?
Are masses moving into their countries? etc
Are we becoming more productive (noticeably wealthier)?
What about social cohesion and a sense of belonging ("my country" vs "all welcome")? NZLG saying moving into a neighbourhood with low social cohesion is "as bad as taking up smoking".

The future of Auckland is the focus of a panel discussion chaired by Bill Ralston at the Auckland Museum. It features Marina Matthews from the law firm Chen Palmer; and Waikare Komene, a young architect from Otara, along with Professor Damon Salesa from the University of Auckland, and business commentator Rod Oram, well-known to RNZ listeners.

Bill Ralston: I mean Marina picking up on the Herald thing and based on your massive study. Going back (I think it was 2001) 67%of our island city was pakeha. Now it is down to 54% and falling rapidlyIt wont be long before Pakeha Aucklanders are a minority. Is that necessarliy a good thing or could it be a bad thing?

Marina Mathews: I think it could be a good thing. I'll just draw on my experiences working 10 years in the public sector in Wellington. I mean when you look at Wellington it has it's own ethnoburbs as well. Um the population and ethnicity of folk in Eastbourne (across the water) is a bit different to that of Cannons Creek by Porirua . So it is slightly systematic. It 's starting to grow across NZ. Asia NZ did a survey (a 2015 report)on the population of house buyers in Auckland. It was just a little more scientific than Phil Twyford may have ventured about people who had surnames that might have sounded like some foreign word who were house owners. What they did say is that 25% of the population of Pine Hill in NZ are Chinese. Um 10% of the population of house owners in Glenn Innes are Indian and so what is happening as a result is that businesses are having to alter what they are doing, how they are delivering and how they are coping. The number one seller at Pac nSave in Albany is white rice (not white potatoes). Another big seller is chicken feet. And so you are seeng the market (I love the French market in Parrnell) It's a lot different to if I went down to Otara on a saturday.

Ralston: It's a lot different to if you went down Sandringham Road where there's a whole pile of medium spice shopsand Restuarants, um and down the back of Dominion Road there is the biggest Chinese Supermarket I've ever seen (bout 2 or 3 football fields in size) and you can buy whatever you want. That's the gift, I suppose, that diversity brings.

Rod Oram: Absolutely! That makes Auckland a fabulously interesting city. And obviously the key thing we need to care a lot about about are that people are moving around and are appreciating and taking more interest year round rather ratjher than just turning up at Albert Park for a lantern show or Diwhali festival. And of course there are people who just hunker downin their neighbourhood or their community. But I'd like to thinkthere are people particularily amongst the younger generation who are strong in their own identity but are keen to appreciate other identities too.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/smarttalk/audio/201778519/s...
"we have an elite that is not subject to the consequences of the utopian dream"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1eNcuGcPW4&t=1734s

Which is all nice touchy feely hogwash about identity and fabulous interesting diversity.. but if they would read the larger tea leaves...

A city requires the ongoing input of colossal amounts of energy (oil coal and gas) so that it can function. The catch being our energy sources (Oil, coal gas) are both in depletion AND totally reliant on working markets & supply chains (ie financial trust..)

Any financial crash which leads to supply chain issues & cities will go back to seeming like a good idea at the time ... and remember solar panels and wind turbines don't for functioning cities make

Mis-direction. Sleight of Hand. This is how its done. This article has expired and reached its use by date. On review it will be noticed that the Asian population for the whole of NZ will reach 22%. Note the calculation is based on National numbers. Not Regional numbers

The reality - The majority of Asians will locate into the Auckland area

This group's population is expected to increase from 540,000 in 2013 to 1,400,000 in 2038 - an increase of 259%

As DGZ says above it is more accurately expressed as 50% or higher of the Auckland population

Comment by bw just above is thought provoking