Population growth from migration continued to slow in February, with a net gain of 7405 for the month, down from 8609 in February last year and 8581 in February 2016, according to Statistics NZ.
In the 12 months ended February there was a net gain gain of 68,333 people compared to 71,333 in the 12 months to February last year and 67,391 in the 12 months to February 2016.
Statistics NZ said net migration hit its annual peak in the 12 months to July 2017, and the latest figures were the first time annual net migration had gone below 69,000 since May 2016.
However the strong migration gains are still extremely high by historical standards and have increased dramatically over the last five years, rising from a net gain of just 1195 in the 12 months February 2013 to 68,333 in the 12 months to February this year.
Statistics NZ said the downturn over the last 12 months had mainly been caused by an increase in departures of non-New Zealand citizens, with 29,100 leaving in the 12 months to February, up 22% from the previous 12 months.
However this was still a net loss of 813 New Zealand citizens in the 12 months to February, as more New Zealanders left the country long term than arrived back after an extended stay overseas, while there was a net gain 69,756 of non-New Zealand citizens over the same period.
In a note on the figures Westpac economist Satish Ranchhod said the net gain was expected to keep falling.
"We expect that migration will continue to ease back over the next few years," he said.
"Much of the increase in migration in recent years was due to people arriving on temporary work and student visas.
"We are now seeing many of these earlier arrivals departing.
"We expect that this will continue for some time yet."
The biggest source countries were China (including Hong Kong) with a net gain of 9297 form that country in the 12 months to February, followed by India 6905, the UK 5916, South Africa 4910 and the Philippines 4756.
Of the 130,966 people who arrived in the country for more than 12 months in the year to February, 46,183 were on work visas (up 7.3% on the previous 12 months), 38,684 were New Zealand or Australian citizens (+1.6%), 23,960 were on student visas (+0.5%) and 14,841 were on residency visas.
The figures also show that Auckland remain the destination of choice for migrants, with a documented net gain of 34,928 in the Auckland region in the 12 months to February.
On top of that there was also more than 11,000 migrants who did not state where they intended to live when they arrived, which means the total net gain to Auckland's population in the year to the end of February was probably more than 40,000 people, which means pressures on Auckland's infrastructure such as housing, transport and social services is continuing to increase at a substantial rate.
Net long term migration
Select chart tabs
24 Comments
"Strong migration gains are still extremely high by historical standards and have increased dramatically over the last five years, rising from a net gain of just 1195 in the 12 months February 2013 to 68,333 in the 12 months to February this year."
That's the real headline isn't it?
Flight arrival/departure data based on travelers intentions is interesting but it doesn't reveal what is really happening. How many arrive as students and change to workers and then become 'skilled' permanent residents?How many of those skilled residents are high paid, significant contributors to NZ in tax and innovation such as a surgeon or consultant electrical engineer and how many are skilled as so called 'chefs', 'retail managers', and 'bakers' earning minimum wages and eventually receiving Auckland accommodation allowances, starting families and sending their children to school where they are captured in the statistics as New Zealand children.
The reality is immigrants can be good for NZ or bad; there are new Kiwis we can be proud of and there are dreadful stories of near slavery exploitation and all the shades in between. If INZ concentrated on actual received pay confirmed by IRD as its main criteria for residency then things would be improving and society would stop being ever more anti-immigrant.
We may have some information to begin with. Recent data on residence visa approvals show an increasing proportion of these being awarded to tradesmen and labourers over the past few years as a result of low quality international education. What's more bothering is that most of these are linked to the tourism, agriculture and hospitality sector.
That trend also explains the downward productivity curve and anemic per capita economic growth.
The government has promised strong GDP growth figures with fewer but better migrants; let's see how they deliver on both these commitments in such a short while.
Why does it matter to NZers what the people in the UK did? Why is that relevant to us? It is just as irrelevant to our situation as what people in Malta or Latvia think about immigration. The only thing that is relevant is what "we" think. If our immigrant rate is too high, about right, or too low, it has virtually nothing to do with the UK and their collective reactions. We long ago ceased to be an actual colony, and have even ceased to be a social colony. To be honest, I doubt we can learn a lot from them and their experience. Their history is not our history. Their laws aren't our laws. Their relations with neighbours aren't ours. There are much better reference points for us to look at.
Because immigration in the Uk has caused a lot of problems
https://www.steynonline.com/8528/of-the-remenant-nedeth-nat-enquere
Most NZers still have ancestral ties to the UK.
NZ has inherited the UK system of Government and law.
Most NZers have a similar value system to the UK and it’s people.
NZ, Australia, Canada etc all have a colonial past which is linked to the UK.
Most NZers don’t have a negative attitude to the Brits.
Most NZers don’t subscribe to a revisionist view of history that denies their past, their heritage and their family ties.
The Treaty of Waitangi, NZs founding document owes much of its intent to the UK, the Crown and the original authority of Britain.
Brexit has demonstrated the effects of mass immigration and people’s reaction to the effects of disproportionate immigration with no reference to the wishes of the electorate.
DC,
I lived in the UK for 57 years,before coming here in retirement in 2003.I am surprised that there appears to be so little appetite to become a Republic. i find it hard to understand. There seems to still be a significant element of'cultural cringe'. Yes,we now don't send cases to the House of Lords,but why do we need a Governor-General or the monarch as our head of state? It's time we grew up.
Much of the recent drop in net migration (departure of non-New Zealanders) is a result of National's policy change (minimum income threshold for residence and essential skills visa application). That takes care of the abnormally high permanent migration problem.
I read something about student, family stream and partnership visas going under review.
Here we are again. Net long term migration is fairly meaningless. What I care about is New Zealand for New Zealanders. How many are leaving and being replaced by people from less western backgrounds? How many people are here "temporarily". Tourists and temporary workers need housing and roads too.
Basically I want the numbers on any migration. It doesn't take a PHD in statistics to work that out. Install a turn style at every airport arrival and departure gate.
Enough is enough Labour. These people are scamming us. They are making a mockery of our system. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/102394706/immigration-nz-aware-of-marr…
Labour yarped on about how they'd cut 12 months "net" migration down to 30k. When they came in net migration was 71k (~130k gross). They've been in power for four months and three weeks. Changing immigration policy isn't rocket science so they should have been able to do something quickly to cut incoming migration from 130,000 to 89,000 which would only be a third off our huge numbers.
If the coalition did what they campaigned on four months ago 13,600 visas would have been blocked thus far and annual net migration would be 57K right now. It's 69k.
It doesn't need to be "reviewed' by a "committee" or any of this horse sh* nonsense. Here are just a few easy pickings. Cut the family stream brownie points for non-citizen sponsors. Strike chef and retail manager off the skills list. Raise the points required for a skilled migrant visa.
SHUT THE DOOR
Cutting from 70k to 30k would not shut the door. It would remove NZ from the top of the immigration ladder but still leave us way ahead of the USA (that is USA under Obama). It would leave NZ with massively more immigration than Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, Norway, Switzerland, etc.
It would be good for our government to keep its word - trust is a valuable political commodity.
Recent conversations I've had with friends who have moved to New Zealand from the UK and USA indicate that they WILL NOT STAY here long term. The quality of life may be better but the cost of living - housing, food etc make it unviable in the long term. Probably earning around $150k - $200k pa. Do we really want to lose them?
I can't think of a country where productive activity is more punished and nonproductive activity is more rewarded. Income tax, ACC levy, GST, council rates. Superannuation will be taken away, so in effect Kiwisaver is just another tax. Yet do nothing land bankers are practically worshiped. Fletchers/Carters are actively sheltered from competition by outdated building codes and brown cardigan council employees. The commerce commission has no problem with our one giant insurance company or two supermarkets.
Of course NZ isn't going to attract quality people with these taxes on income and ripoff pricing everywhere. In the status quo we're just a choice for those who couldn't make the cut elsewhere.
Hint hint Labour/NZF - snap up those skilled white South Africans while you can.
Because it's whites who 1) have the skills and work ethic and 2) are being tortured and murdered.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-wh…
Don't kid yourself. ANC politicians have rallies and sing "kill the Boer".
Your 1] is covered by the skills category (if only it was enforced) and many of the low-paid Asian immigrants I meet have admirable work ethic - that is why they are so vulnerable to the widespread worker exploitation that is a major disgrace in NZ.
2] is covered by the refugee quota. I have strong sympathy with your point.
But it is best to keep the two categories separate: immigrants we ask 'how can you help NZ' and refugees we ask 'how can we help you'.
It is the lazy thinking of left-wing Labour MPs to treat low skilled Asian immigrants as being especially deserving of our support without realising the low-talent low-skill low-wage worker from a 3rd world country is always middle class in their country of origin. That is how they can afford to pay agents and airfares. For example some of the Indian PhDs who chose to work in California, NY, London, Oxford are from the very bottom of their society but achieved their qualifications by sheer brain power - it is pity they do not chose NZ but our reputation is for the place the less bright go.
Satish doesn't bother me; good luck to him; who knows he might have been born here. The effect of immigrant economists is to drive down wages for economists but few economists are starving especially if employed by a big bank. It is the immigrants at the bottom of the food chain who are taking my children's jobs and/or reducing their wages.
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.