New Zealand had its biggest monthly merchandise trade surplus last month since the Covid-affected trade in April and May 2020.
Other than the Covid affected months, we need to go back to April 2011 to find a larger monthly trade surplus than the $970 million recorded in March 2025.
Additionally, the $7.59 billion worth of the exports in March 2025 is, just in pure in dollar terms, the biggest figure ever.
Moody’s Analytics associate economist Shannon Nicoll said a weaker Kiwi dollar and stronger global prices for New Zealand's key commodities boosted nominal export values. "Meat and dairy (particularly butter) prices have benefited from sturdy demand amid weaker supply," he said.
"Demand from China, the largest market for New Zealand's dairy produce, has been most encouraging. The first three months of this year featured unseasonably high shipments to the nation, marking a quick turnaround from last year's struggles. Meanwhile, shipments of meat to the U.S. have remained strong."
He did caution, however, that looking ahead, the outlook for these two markets has dimmed.
"A jittery Chinese consumer base threatens exports of New Zealand's soft commodities. At the same time, lingering trade tensions with the U.S. make matters worse."
Statistics NZ said the $7.59 billion export figure was up 19% ($1.2 billion) on the figure for March 2024.
Big contributions to the rise came from milk powder, butter, and cheese, up $596 million (35%); meat and edible offal, up $286 million (34%); fruit, up $271 million (74%); and mechanical machinery and equipment, up $93 million (50%)
In terms of our biggest trading partners, there were big rises compared with March 2024 in exports to China, up $371 million (23 percent), the EU, up $223 million (51%) and the US, up $176 million (22%).
In terms of exports to China, the largest rises were milk powder, butter, and cheese, fruit, and logs and wood. The biggest rise in exports to the EU came from meat and edible offal, mechanical machinery and equipment and fruit, while the biggest rises to the US were meat and edible offal, beverages, spirits, and vinegar, and logs, wood, and wood articles.
Looking at the 12 month picture, annual goods exports were valued at $74.1 billion, up $5.1 billion from the previous year. Annual goods imports were valued at $80.2 billion, up $1.3 billion from the previous year.
The annual trade deficit was $6.1 billion, which was down on the $10.0 billion in the year ended March 2024.
46 Comments
Very good. Also important to remember that China has the power to dump into the Aotearoa and Aussie consumer markets. Very good for the beaten-down consumer, but not so good for the business environment. Could be some kind of deflationary impulse and we can all shift our focus back to the Ponzi as the cost of debt falls. So my reckon is that the 'happy days' scenario needs to be balanced with unintended consequences.
OK it’s old hat stuff but, like it or lump it, at the same time it is undeniable that NZ’s success as a mercantile nation is mostly dependent on the success of its primary production. The present government is more akin to that fact than the last lot by a country mile, and it shows.
When we embarked on Neoliberalism in the 80s, the pundits thought our agriculture would die without subsidization, and we'd grow into a new neato services derived export market.
Turns out we just got more efficient at agriculture.
More efficient?...perhaps but the real survival tactic has been the repositioning. The land use has changed considerably since the 80s and even so it is now more profitable to farm carbon credits on much of our land than anything else.
30 odd years of survival is not a bad effort, lets see what the next 30 bring.
More efficient?
Yeah, as in, the difference between the cost to produce and the sales price widened. We developed better export product, and made them fairly economically, relative to our peers.
When something like Kiwifruit is less economical than farming carbon credits, we're in proper trouble.
You appear to have missed the point...we didnt (so much) improve efficiency, we changed tack. We largely abandoned sheep products and moved to dairy....that (volume) topped out some time ago.
You appear to have missed the point...we didnt (so much) improve efficiency, we changed tack.
What's the difference. If you have 24hrs in a day, is it used more efficiently if you work 1hr as a plastic surgeon instead of 10 as a shopping trolley attendant, or did you just change tack?
Turns out we just got more efficient at agriculture.
Don't want to rain on your cheerleading P, but dollar value of exports yoy has increased 6.8%. Aotearoa Peso has appreciated 7%+ YTD and 2% P12M.
So good to keep a bit of perspective and not let your imagination run wild as to how great we are. Granny Herald might paint a different picture. But that's not the point.
One of us is talking about a 40 year measurable arc and the other's looking for short term plot points to make some sort of case. I'm also a farmer and can attest to development of a product and technology that has greatly increased the output of the land. Can you even keep a pot plant alive?
So the point of perspective is at vastly different ends of a telescope.
But that's not the point.
Your point seems to be to shitcan anything remotely positive about NZ, and use the inverse approach appraising anywhere else. It's a point that doesn't really tell us much.
One of us is talking about a 40 year measurable arc
Well of course. Look at what China has achieved in terms of export since entering the WTO in 2001.
So let me get your position straight, your point is our agricultural sector has not undertaken a large improvement in viability and revenue, relative to what it was in the 80s?
So let me get your position straight, your point is our agricultural sector has not undertaken a large improvement in viability and revenue, relative to what it was in the 80s?
Maybe P. But what is your yardstick? As a share of Aotearoa GNP / GDP, agriculture has been flat or even fallen since the 1980s.
But what is your yardstick?
Value of sales (or more specifically exports) vs cost of inputs (or more specifically subsidies). So far every case you've made against that, is using metrics that have little to nothing to do with it (currency value, and share of GDP). You're bending things towards your bias that involves you totally ignoring what I'm saying.
Value of sales (or more specifically exports) vs cost of inputs (or more specifically subsidies)
Value growth doesn't mean a higher monetary value P, unless you're shipping the same volume of product. Even then, it may not mean greater export value.
Say I had some land, and before I raised sheep on it for export, and netted $2k a hectare. Now I grow kiwifruit on it for export, and I net $30k a hectare.
So I didn't fundamentally improve the export value and viability of the farm?
Sure P. You could even have no land and license growing to countries like South Korea and Italy.
But what's your point?
You could even have no land and license growing to countries like South Korea and Italy.
Sure, if they were more efficient at it. But then again, you've just removed any opportunity for local industry to be involved in any part of the process. And overlooked inherent advantages of conducting agriculture in NZ (temperate climate, rainfall and sunshine). You do realize things we produce here have higher quality levels and efficiencies due to our inherent natural advantages, right?
But what's your point?
I just gave an example of increased export value from agriculture over time. My own situation is similar, the value of exports I generate from my land is an easy 10 fold higher than what the land was producing 15 years ago.
I guess I needed you to tell me that's not the case. Even though my bank balance differs.
Well P, Zespri licenses growing to SK, Japan, Italy, France, Aussie. One of the advantages of extending selling seasons in global markets; proximity to mkt; and monetizing IP.
No land required.
You've just demonstrated the export power of our agriculture. Running counter to your claims.
- the product needed development in the form of R&D, marketing, distribution. All $, in NZ
- it needed a proof of concept. So domestic commercial farms. Which are more profitable and generate more export revenue than what was there before (sheep farms and apple orchards)
- now extra revenue is being garnished under license. So export dollars, we don't need to do anything extra for.
This same sort of activity is occuring across many of our agricultural sectors. And where it isn't, it's because you can't grow the same thing, at the same quality, cheaper elsewhere, and we are generating all the value in NZ (so lean beef, some of our wine varietals, etc).
Compared to heavily subsidized NZ agriculture, a million miles apart. Almost sounds like Interest could do with a weekly profile on a specific agricultural sector that's punching above its weight.
You've just demonstrated the export power of our agriculture. Running counter to your claims.
No claims P. The yoy export data is good. But not something amazing. That's all.
Has nothing to do with what I said that you questioned.
You talk of inputs and currency yet ignore the facts...we have moved from a low input model to a high input model AND increased the proportion of inputs sourced offshore.
We may be currently reaping a premium due to circumstance but the model is more vulnerable than it was previously (mind you everything is in this climate)
This argument goes for everyone, everywhere.
As below, there's many worse places to be if it went away.
Having seen much of the world, that's a fact that's hard to ignore (I try to be cognisant of it every day)
"As below, there's many worse places to be if it went away."
Read that again and ask yourself if thats what you meant
Yup, stand by it.
She's pretty grim out there mate
You talk of inputs and currency yet ignore the facts...we have moved from a low input model to a high input model AND increased the proportion of inputs sourced offshore.
You cannot ignore currency. The current tariff war has some parallels with why the Plaza Accord happened.
"You cannot ignore currency."
And yet we do
Dairy is heavily subsidised. For example the $40 million fund allocated for the Lake Rotorua Incentives Scheme is dedicated to purchasing nitrogen reductions from landowners who voluntarily commit to permanently decreasing their nitrogen leaching into Lake Rotorua.
And there is also the Lake Taupo levy on all Waikato ratepayers to fund the nitrogen issue caused by Dairy.
If the same criteria was placed on Canterbury farm system, the cost would be $12 Billion. So apparently Sth Island rivers are less important than the lakes (never mind aquafer pollution).
So perhaps we are not more efficient, just omitting some of the 'costs' when we choose to measure.
In a global context, where Europe is subsiding agriculture to the tune of hundreds of billions of Euros a year, our level of subsidization barely registers.
Up until the 80s, direct subsidies made up nearly half of farmers incomes in NZ.
Yeah and they acknowledge it to and its for a very good reason - food security, Something we don't really have to worry about.
I was thinking of steak eggs and chips tonight but its 100% now...
Yeah and they acknowledge it to and its for a very good reason - food security,
Aotearoa doesn't have a single, comprehensive national food security policy. It's all jury rigged. That's why the poorest people are most vulnerable.
They're the most vulnerable, because they're having to compete with global pricing for domestically produced goods. Their security comes in the form of social welfare.
But we established why countries like China have a food security policy; they're not self sufficient for calories, and 10s of millions of their population starved to death in recent history.
Yeah and they acknowledge it to and its for a very good reason - food security, Something we don't really have to worry about.
Was that a problem here before 1980?
Havnt checked but suspect the volume and variety of imported food products is now a much larger proportion than pre the 80s reforms....half (at least) the stuff i buy in the supermarket is produced offshore....and my diet is not exactly 'exotic.'
Sure, nuts, rice, processed goods, etc are imported.
It's cheaper than many of our domestic goods, especially where labour is a larger component.
If it all went away, you're unlikely to starve. Your diet would change tho
Nuts and rice?...try frozen vege, pork, dairy, seafood potato fries FFS, most processed foods of all varieties. I bought nesquik cereal for the grandkids the other day...produced in the Philipines....wtf?
As I said, if the labours cheaper.
It's cheaper to grow fruit in South America, ship it to Thailand, have them process it, and send it to here.
We're not the primary customer for what me make.
It begs the question how a simple product can be grown, harvested and processed and packaged (all largely by machinery, with a consequent limited labour content) can be shipped halfway around the world and make a locally grown product (with all the same available processing capability) uncompetitive.
It does for one who has his own chickens, cows and grows his own potatoes...
But if you live in an apartment.... that costs $600k
Is housing any cheaper in Canada?....13,000 km away.
It begs the question how a simple product can be grown, harvested and processed and packaged (all largely by machinery, with a consequent limited labour content)
Probably because the labour content is far greater than you think, and the machinery to replace people in many of these functions is fairly expensive and complicated.
It can be half a million dollars or more for a modern, complex, computerized harvester, and hundreds of dollars an hour to operate it. You can get a lot of bodies for that sort of money elsewhere.
Possibly so, and I can see how the freight and handling costs could be justified (competitive) for small and high value goods but struggle to see any comparative advantage that overcomes those costs for the likes of 'potato products' et al....something does not add up.
It would all be fine if the consequence of it wasnt the loss of capability for us to provide such for ourselves when (not if) for whatever reason access to those distantly sourced necessities is removed....especially for a remote economy such as NZ.
The theory is that we're better being freed from doing these lower value tasks to focus on something specialized at higher value, and we can afford more of these much cheaper goods sourced elsewhere.
The reality is obviously mixed. But we're going for maximum efficiency at the cost of redundancy/resilience.
At only a few thousand dollars to move a container around, the cost savings on even $2 items can stack up.
FX
Great news and well done to the primary industry and related organisations
Supports my theory that the economic recovery starts in Southland and works its way up the country. - (Auckland has a while to wait IMO)
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.