By David Hargreaves
Migration is an issue that's a bit of lose-lose for any government.
Open the borders to all and sundry and a government risks an immigration flood that potentially carries social and economic risks. Close the borders and it looks xenophobic, insular and, well, just mean. A government can also rob itself of the potential to add capital, ideas and cultural diversity to a country's mix.
No surprise then that our Government has chosen the classic approach to our current inbound migration boom. It is ignoring it and waiting for it to go away. The Government presumably doesn't see votes to be gained by jumping in either direction on the issue.
I commented recently (with some possibly visible scepticism) on the Reserve Bank's hopeful opinion that immigration had now "plateaued".
Well, good luck on that one.
According to Statistics New Zealand's latest figures, in the 12 months to September the country added more than 61,200 net migrants, a new record beating the 60,300 record figure for the 12 months to August.
In September there was an actual net gain of 7069 net migrants - that's the most for any September month and just short of the monthly record of 7101 set in February this year.
But of more significance is to look at the "seasonally-adjusted" figures, where Stats NZ has taken out seasonal variations in migration patterns. These figures tell you that we hit a historic high water mark in July with a seasonally-adjusted 5720 net migrants, falling to 5480 in August (a then second-highest ever figure) and then rising again to a new second-highest ever figure of 5550 in September.
If the rate of growth in the past three months were to be maintained over a full year, this would give an annual growth rate of 67,000 migrants.
To go back to the actual figures, the 61,234 net migrants arriving in the 12 months to September represent an addition of around 1.3% of New Zealand's population.
If we look at the picture in Auckland, the number of net arrivals in the 12 months to September was 28,395, which represents an addition of about 1.75% of Auckland's population.
The last time Auckland saw inbound migration at anything like these levels was in 2002 and 2003, when for the 12 months to September in each year net inbound migration topped the 20,500 mark.
But in that regard it is also worth looking at building consent figures. In the 12 months to September 2002 there were over 10,600 new dwelling units consented in Auckland, while for the 12 months to September 2003 the figure was just short of 12,500.
Building consent figures for September this year haven't been released yet, but for the 12 months to August there were slightly more than 8600 dwelling units consented for Auckland. It may be reasonable to think the figure for the September year may be over 9000 - but that would be versus net immigrants during the same period of over 28,000. So, during the peak of the 2002-03 immigration boom, Auckland was building about half as many houses as it was receiving migrants, while now the ratio's under a third. And this in a city widely reported as having a substantial shortage of houses for its existing population.
It is not about stay-at-home Kiwis
At this point it is again worth tackling one of the constant refrains - which I think has become a very misleading one - that the current migration boom is more a story about New Zealanders staying at home than it is one of increased immigration.
Yes, more Kiwis are staying at home, but they haven't STOPPED leaving altogether. Far from it.
In the 12 months to September, 35,358 NZers left the country on long term trips, while 30,025 returned, meaning a net 5333 Kiwis left the country. That's a relatively low figure, but nothing like the lowest ever. In the 12 months to September 1983 the country saw fewer than 1000 net departures of Kiwis.
But in contrast, if we roll the calendar back three years from 2015 we see that in the 12 months to September 2012 some 61,915 NZ citizens shot through, while just 22,370 returned for a net loss of 39,545 Kiwis in the 12 month period.
So, yes, far fewer Kiwis are leaving at the moment, that's true. But there is still a net outflow of NZ citizens on an annual basis. It's also worth noting that of those NZ citizens leaving in the past 12 months, a net 3586 left Auckland - so the burgeoning inbound Auckland migration figures are not all about Kiwis coming back either.
The final point on this is to look at the recent trend in net migration figures EXCLUDING NZ citizens. In the year ended September 2012 a net 36,265 non-NZ migrants arrived, rising to 41,831 in September 2013, 55,106 in September 2014 and now a net 66,567 non-NZ citizens have been added to the population in the latest 12 month period. That's a 30,302, or 83.6%, rise in the net number of non-NZ migrants in just three years.
Monitoring the flood
Moving away from the net figures, and looking at long-term arrivals into the country (which includes returning Kiwis) these totalled 118,882 in the 12 months to September, up from 105,468 in the September 2014 year and just 91,187 in the September 2013 year. That's a 27,695, or 30.4% rise in the numbers in just two years.
In recent years large numbers of people have been entering the country on work visas. In the year to September, 36,319 were on work visas. That's up from a total of 31,910 on work visas over the previous 12 months, and 28,914 in the September 2013 year. Assuming this rise is linked to the Christchurch rebuild then presumably these numbers may well subside over time, though obviously they remain very strong at the moment.
But then there's students. It is worth noting that this Government made changes to rules making it easier for overseas students to work here in late 2013.
In the September 2013 year 14,907 people entered on student visas, rising to 21,376 in the September 2014 year and 26,986 in the 12 months ended September 2015. That's a 12,079, or 81%, increase in just two years.
The increase in student numbers in that two year period represents some 43.6% of the total increase in overall arrival figures in that time.
Clearly the Government's change to the student policy has been a very significant contributor to the increase in overall migration gains.
Banking on an exodus
It seems to me that this Government is banking on resumption of a large-scale exodus of Kiwis fairly soon. In the five September years up to 2013, for example, a net average of over 27,500 Kiwis per year left the country. History is on the Government's side.
However, it seems a fairly dangerous assumption for the Government to make that such an exodus will recommence in the near future. And it's risky and dangerous for the Government to rely on such an outcome.
The NZ escape valve has always been Australia. If it's grim at home, clear off across the ditch and make your fortune in the Lucky Country.
But there's a problem at the moment. I simply can't recall, from an economic perspective, the last time Australia looked so unattractive as a place to go and live. Unless prospects across the ditch improve more quickly than seems likely at the moment, it's very difficult to see the tap of outbound Kiwis being turned on again very soon. And if the exodus doesn't soon resume - and I don't think it will - then this country is going to be looking at a case of population-fed severe indigestion very soon.
Auckland as the biggest city and prime recipient of the migrants will probably get double indigestion.
What to do?
This country cannot control what New Zealand citizens do. Whether they stay here and live. Whether they leave. Whether they return. But the Government can control the numbers of non-New Zealand citizens coming here. And it should be doing this far more diligently.
With an economy that's now turning down and with unemployment levels set to rise, It makes no sense to be artificially inflating the population of this country and its largest city. Not when we don't have the economy, the jobs, the houses and the infrastructure to cope with even current population numbers.
At the very least the Government should as a matter of urgency be revisiting the rules around overseas students and work rights. That would be a good first step.
The Government has helped to cause a situation that is likely to become a problem very soon. And it's a problem that is not going to go away by itself, even if the Government keeps crossing fingers that it will.
71 Comments
"... ideas and cultural diversity ...", my gosh, will this tired old rant ever stop? I have never come across any new "ideas" just because someone had come from a different country. Quite the opposite. They dare not speak up because they are scared to lose the job/visa and they mostly come from countries where speaking up, intellectual diversity, has no tradition anyways. And cultural diversity, thanks, I can do without the burkas in Sandringham and the eternal Chinese dragon dance and Indian saree dance girls at the multiculti show, and they can keep their unhealthy takeaways, too.
Whatever Key might do (and probably wont), as long as he does not employ immigration policy advisers from Germany, I am, however, reassured.
I'm at the peak of my game but dipped out in getting a job with a company that has recently won awards for its diversity policy.
I am completely, 100% undiverse.
Sour grapes? Maybe an element of that.
I am unemployed now. But I'm actually grateful. I don't want to work for a company which is so politically correct and so exposed now to major stuff ups (in a dangerous industry) due to the diverse backgrounds of the newly recruited staff.
The problem is not allowing not citizens to vote. I'm not a citizen and I would nit understand why I don't deserve a saying in politics or why my interests don't deserve to be represented in parliament.
Immigrants don't tend to vote pro-immigration. Have a look at USA case and the Hispanic community.
Many in NZ have more interest in more immigration than immigrants themselves.
-property owners
-banks
-most of the companies where more work candidates mean more choice and less pressure to increase salaries
-land and resource owners
voting implies you are invested, so I agree there should be a min requirement before the right to vote is given. Otherwise you'll see people who only intend to live in nz temporarily and so vote on a very short sighted and self serving basis without considering the long term prospects of NZ as a whole.
I agree only people with long term future relationship with NZ should be able to vote. I just think the requirement to be a citizen or Permanent Resident should suffice rather than the number of years as taxpayer in the past or the amount paid in taxes as it's the only long term commitment proof.
PS: voting is already only granted to Permanent Residents and citizens.
5 years?
why not 7 or 3? Is it a random number?
If it's based on how much tax I have paid the number of years is irrelevant.
So kiwis living overseas and not paying any tax in NZ should have a saying with their vote just because they hold a NZ passport, but new migrants should just contribute and remain silence for 5 years.
Not that I care much voting or not.. but I'm interested in knowing why the 5 years wait :)
One reason could be that as the Govt won't be getting a migrants vote for two elections, then they won't try and use immigration policy to skew election results. We all know that migrants will favour the incumbent that let them in, and many recent elections have come down to just a few tens of thousands of votes. So it removes any incentive for match fixing...
5 years because they would then have been here long enough to have made there own mind up on the political landscape and would not be beholdiing to the party that allowed them in.
if you think that any political party in NZ would not use immigration as a way of getting elected that would be naive to say the least.
the most obivous examples are WP saying ban them all to the labour party busing them to the polling booths
If you are born in NZ you have to wait 18 years until you can vote, why not do the same for all newcomers??
Likewise unemployment benefits and for that matter all welfare including superann should be deferred until you have actually been here for a decent period. 18 years???? Why not?? We are being milked at the moment by scammers exploiting immigration loop holes and sneaking into the country. Tighter rules are needed.
Mass immigration is a short-sighted economic tool. I remember meeting Helen in 2002 at the airport, and saying "cut the migration numbers please!" Now 13 years later Auckland is a changed city, to the point where I no longer feel I want to live here. So a sustainable flow of migrants is my number one reason to vote.
Yes, a lot more of us would move away were it not for family commitments. I lived in a particular suburb until 14 years ago which was then very attractive. Since then it has become well over 50% immigrants and has many unkempt street frontages and buildings in need of a do up.
You no longer feel you want to live here?
Crikey .. according to Bozeman you should be so thankful - doing handstands and cartwheels in gratitude over the new-Auckland - the diversity - the cultural diversity - the mix of languages - the wonderful cuisines - emulating Paris, London, and New York - you must wonder of course if people in Paris and London and New York run around telling themselves they should be emulating Invercargill or maybe even Auckland
Do you know that healthcare and education is not "free" for immigrants unless they are NZ Permanent Residents or have a work visa longer than 2 years.. right?
NZ healthcare and education price is not precisely something attractive. If that's what they were looking for they'd be better off somewhere in Europe where that's actually "free" not only to newcomers but also to illegal immigrants.
NZ attracts immigration now because there are jobs available and offered to immigrants. That's all.
NZ attracts immigrants now because all you need to get in is to enrol in some mickey mouse education course - then its off to the petrol station, fast food, 2 dollar shop job and maybe buy a couple of Herne Bay villas using uncle "Bura Laṛaka Ranji's" money, thats all.
The job with the Kiwi passport at the end is the attraction - not the 3 hour a week education. Once the kiwi is attained watch out Australia. No wonder Turnbull is starting to play hardball.
Kiwis so dumb lah.
No..
You can be on a student visa or on a work visa shorter than 2 years, not being a visitor and still not having funded healthcare.
And considering that GOOD HEALTH is already a requirement to be a resident (health tests are a requirement) why shouldn't an immigrant that lives and work in NZ have the same rights in healthcare than any citizen if the illness is developed while in NZ?
I don't see any negative thing there. I don't understand why some people think healthcare or education is a driver for immigration in NZ. It's not. Not for quality nor for cost.
Reasons are jobs and lifestyle (which is related to work anyway)
In NZ immigrants are not milking the system. Quite the opposite if that's what we're discussing.
Do I believe it is unsustainable at these levels considering that less people are leaving NZ? It's getting there, but when an immigrant is offered a job within the first week of arrival (and I know tens of cases) something tells me that the job market is still strong to absorb overseas workers. That will change soon and we better start planning ahead by paying close attention to unemployment levels.
What makes you think students and folks on temporary work visas should get free healthcare? I didn't know they did? I'd have thoguht they'd need to secure health insurance before having a stduent/work visa approved. NZers studying overseas in other jurisdictions do.
Here's a good example;
Ghosh said he had lived in New Zealand for nearly a decade after moving here to study in 2006, and he considers himself a kiwi.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/73331984/indian-man-in-limbo-after-immi…
So, having been on (I assume) as student visa for 10 years and not having worked during that time - NZers taxes have paid for this person's healthcare? It's nuts - effectively any money needing to be spent on this person's health is a subsidy to the universities/training institutions.
And now after 10 years studying here (I'm assuming some kind of qualification has been secured), permanent residence was declined (no offer of work relevant to the field of study, or on the skills category needed list, I assume) - and now having secured a job at New World, the individual wants a temporary work visa based on having secured that job.
It's nuts.
And think of all the admin/processing of the various visa, residence etc. applications over this 10 year period. Big associated costs to the taxpayer there as well.
The overall cost of our immigration policy is crippling - unsustainable.
The monthly myth, perpetrated monthly, by Stats NZ, when releasing travel stats showing 20K "kiwis" going to Aussie or coming back. Many of the departees are "token kiwis" who have been here long enough to get the key to the back door
Australia knows it, New Zealand knows it, that's why AU keep tightening their rules to the detriment of genuine kiwis. The foreign exploiters eventually spoil it for the rest of us
They certainly will. Much as the MSM reporting of the recent discussion on the issue between PMs reported on the matter of NZers being deported back this way - I'm sure that what the new Aussie PM told JK was exactly that: i.e., change your lax immigration policy or we'll kneecap you altogether. Times are tough in Aus, the last thing their economy needs is a backdoor for unskilled job seekers.
We can really thank the red-necks of the US for all this. If it was anywhere near as easy for immigrants to enter US as it is NZ then we'd see none as they'd all go there. Certainly agree that Auckland is no longer considered a 'classic NZ city/town' and has lost appeal to a lot of kiwis. The people make the place, theres still towns where people leave there cars unlocked, you buy a used car without test driving or sell one without counting the cash, knowing the place is too small to ever want to rip anyone off, and knowing that if you dont know the person directly you most likely are mates with someone that does.
Classic NZ still exists, just no longer seen in Auckland.
I actually enjoy the cultural diversity of Auckland, the different accents, as well as service that could not exist without a fair number of migrants. This diversity helps the city now qualifying as a truly international city, giving companies opportunities to be credibly based here, or at least to base a significant functional base here. (see how much the Brits have been sucking up to the Chinese premier the last few days, to see how they think it is important to keep London at a global peak)
However transport in particular, and housing need urgent and bold sorting if the inwards migration tap isn't going to be controlled in any way.
Ok if your happy to sacrifice lifestyle to chase the dollar, or are a stay at home wife/husand while the partner braves the rush (3) hour(s) traffic and stress with dealing with a million plus people all trying to use the same bit of space as you. Manners get thrown out the window and people become less pleasant. Each to their own though.
I have never been to Paris, or London, or New York - have no wish to
What I have done is travel the highways and byways of New Zealand, getting off the beaten path, places where you find dinkum kiwis and plenty of home grown culture, and the more I experience the more I resent the influx of supposed imported diversity
Diversity is a nebulous term that defies definition. People talk about diversity and different cuisines and different cultures and languages, but these newcomers didn't come here to impose their own cultures or even water down our culture.
As correspondent Kate has often observed, as migrants flood in, indirectly they bring about the very adulterated lifestyle they seek to flee from. That's not diversity.
Bozeman the globetrotter internationalist. You have been to Paris, London, New York? Sure :-) ... insulting everyone here who has different views from your own bears witness to the tolerance you picked up in these places.
Btw, try telling a bio-Parisien that his/her city is great and interesting because of all the foreigners roaming around and starting an intifada on a regular basis in the burps and you may get the response you deserve.
Well said itsme. A few months ago Carney of BOE produced a paper confirming yr exact thesis in the UK (the BBC reported it). There is a second leg to the very shaky stool corrupt modern govts'. financials lean on (which Carney ignored) and that's a debased currency to favour vested interests at our, plebeian, expense.
It's really only Auckland feeling the 'pressure' of population growth. There wouldn't be any issues if there was sufficient supply of housing and infrastructure (transport...) to cater for the population growth. Why is the Auckland council being left off the hook for not allowing land to be opened up for housing supply? Maybe the council are trying, but too many nimby's...?
I like Villa's and leafy green suburbs as much as the next person, but if Auckland's predicted population is 2mil by 2030 (personally I think that could happen sooner), then we either put in a fast rail from Wellsford to Hamilton with suburbs the size of Millwater dotted all the way along the railway or do as all other cities around the world and allow the developments you describe.
Better to retain our lifestyle and save billions by not building the infrastructures if we stopped the thousands of immigrants we are getting now that we don't need or want.
Why do we need, for instance, hundreds of immigrants from China employed selling houses to Chinese living in China. I visited an auction last week in Auckland and most of the real estate agents there were Chinese who could not even speak proper English.
It just does not make sense!
I would expect the ratepayers to pay, and if you subscribe user pays, then tolls on motorways. I use the tunnel north of Orewa, and happy to pay for the privilege. I will also be glad when the SH16 to SH20 connection is complete, and happy for my taxes to help pay for it. I can appreciate the argument of Kiwi's not living in Auckland to not have to pay for Auckland. If one lives in Auckland, one should expect to pay for the privilege. If you want to keep a villa in a leafy inner city suburb on a quarter acre section, then expect to pay for the privilege.
NZ has sold out. Who does a growing population benefit? Who does foreign ownership benefit? Not kiwis that's for sure. Growth on paper but inflation/competition for everything else and a loss of lifestyle. Auckland is doomed. I wouldn't move there unless house prices crashed big time which is unlikely.
There is some evidence that once you are in a place as a new migrant, that you don't necessarily want the reasons you came to the new place to be over compromised by yet more migrants. So the new majority may not vote in the manner you suggest. The boomers retiring and wanting to sell their houses might though.
I'm in small-town Canterbury (1,600). At least two paedophiles, someone tried to snatch a 9 year old boy off the street earlier this year, we have regular burglaries (normally a spate, so a tea leaf passing through), some drunk driving (better since new laws), domestic violence, average to poor schooling, poor medical services, no public transport.
Lots of migrants, mainly in dairy. Hoping to get new Indian restaurant soon.
Wtf is 'real' NZ? It's solid when I knock it with my knuckles...
"It's pretty important. Growth is people times productivity," Mr English says.
This is straight from the AFR with respect to the reversal of immigration patterns between Australia and NZ and says it all about the government's attitude to immigration i.e.it's growth for growth's sake. What he's of course is confusing is growth with growth per capita. If you open your doors to more people, of course the economy will grow, but will it grow by more i.e. per capita? Growth per capita is a better way to understand whether people's living standards have actually improved or and in reality this can only be achieved with productivity gains. Certain big business interests and sectors of course benefit from more demand for their products but that doesn't necessarily transfer over to sustainable, long term improvement in living standards.
I am a migrant, came to NZ in 1995, my reasons for migrating were to escape daily corruption , overcrowding, lack of fairness and transparency. It was not that my fellow citizens were all bad but rather poor governance. I could have migrated to US or UK being a medical professional but I liked NZ for its low population density, relatively more egalitarian values and fairness. I never believed in a Utopia and I know there are issues everywhere so I am a realist in that sense.
I regret to say that I have observed gradual eroding of good governance, I see the creeping corrupt practices which are top down. The housing issues, money laundering, govt. favouring big business, eroding democratic
principles , politicians betting shallower, media now essentially dictated by big business and Govt . Look at the big names on board of directors involved in SOE going down and in foreign business interests at the expense of Kiwis, you will find "Pure Bred NZ Pakeha" who are powerful and influential. This type of decline has accelerated under John Key, Bill English and Judith Collins. If people are unhappy with migration then vote Nationa out but that has not happened and it is symptomatic of public apathy.
Amongst my community of migrants we feel saddened to see this state of affairs and fear that Nz is heading the wrong way. The elites in power have decided to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary folks and it is not for the love of migrants, just self interests. Who benefits by keeping the wages down ? Who is the biggest benefactor of increased house prices, Govet can and should legislate for the benefit of its citizens.
I think blaming migrants wont help, but keeping the Govt accountable is the only solution, if Govt was accountable then they will pay attention to the issues NZ is facing. I am not a leftist or Labour fan , infact I voted for national which I regret now.
Bill English has said some interesting things in Australia about trans-Tasman migration - http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/the-best-forecaster-of-austr…
He states, Growth is people times productivity
Reminds me of an old saying, if you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick. In other words, if we import enough people into the country, those numbers will offset the diminishing productivity.
10 x 10 = 100
100 x 1 = 100
Fiddling with immigration is like fiddling with OCR. Both outdated. But yes, policies prohibiting non-citizens to vote and a longer term required for becoming a citizen would be good. Also can't understand spouses of students getting a work visa straight away. Unless the govt-business nexus is depending on that kind of source for continuation of cheap labour/staff to keep costs down, which seems to be the current thinking.
Student numbers should be regulated, will go a long way to improve the quality of education/institutions.
And citizens' input is sorely missing in setting the annual migration targets and the composition of it.
The student schemes are just a way of making money on the part of business and a loophole for students to gain residency, the students are providing cheap labour and both Business and Govt are happy as well as students but this is creating third world conditions for our children. I am not against international students at all but would like to see an honest way of doing it and putting the interests of NZ citizens( which includes migrants) first and foremost. Once again this is driven by vested interests.
We need to raise the act around citizenship. It should be essential to receive New Zealand support services, pensions and benefits, or to own land and busineses etc. Voting only by citizens. New Zealand citizenship should also be hard to get.
Visitors and other resident visa types should compulsorily be required to have full insurance for health, accident, liability, and income support.
If you ain't a citizen a quick free ride to the airport should happen for any infringement. (includes drunk assaultive Australian tourists in Queenstown.
The citizens should ban together and ensure they continue to own New Zealand assets, because it's a hard cold world and unless they do they are truely screwed.
Every NZ University & Polytechnic & PTE would be bankrupt without their 25% or more of international students.
Immigration NZ do not have the resources to evaluate all incoming migrants.
So for the Govt it's a win/win: Financial funding for Unis etc, & immigration vetting outsourced to the tertiary providers.
Notice all the regional polytechnics and universities are running "international teaching mills" on Queen st. Why? Because they are in financial deficit in their home towns/cities. What is this doing to the academic reputation of NZ qualifications?
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.