Migration adds another 47,684 residents in the year to October, could reach 55,000 next year

Migration adds another 47,684 residents in the year to October, could reach 55,000 next year

The surge of people moving to New Zealand shows no sign of abating.

The seasonally adjusted number of people coming to this country on a permanent or long-term basis (12 months or more) surged to an all time high of 5,200 in October, compared to the previous monthly record of 4,800 set in August, which in turn surpassed the previous record of 4,700 set in February 2003, according to Statistics NZ.

The actual (non-seasonally adjusted) figures show there was a net gain (the surplus of long-term arrivals over long-term departures) of 6,371 in October, compared with 4,101 in October last year, 1,785 in October 2012 and 824 in October 2011.

On an annual basis, the net population gain from migration was 47,684 in the year to October, compared with 17,684 in the previous 12 months.

Statistics NZ said the big jump in migration figures between October 2013 compared to October 2014 was mainly due to an increase in the number of non-New Zealand citizens coming to this country.

The figures also reveal that for the first time in 23 years, the number of permanent and long term migrants coming from Australia, exceed the number of people leaving this country permanently for Australia.

In October 1714 migrants arrived from Australia, while 1697 left New Zealand for that country,  giving a net gain of 17 people from across the ditch.

In the year to October, the country sustained a net loss of population to Australia of 5,311 people, well down the net loss of 23,493 in the year to October 2013 and a net loss of 39,330 in the year to October 2012.

Over the last 12 months, the biggest net gain in migrants has come from India (9,512), followed by China and Hong King (7,729), the UK (5,315), The Philippines (3,427), Germany (2,558) and France (2,289). 

Westpac senior economist Felix Delbruck said if the monthly net migration trend continues, as it is likely to do while the Australia labour market remains weak, annual net migration would be on track to hit an unprecedented 55,000 people a year by the middle of next year.

"This month's outcome was even stronger than we had expected, and will certainly come as a surprise to the Reserve Bank," Delbruck wrote in a First Impressions update  on the migration data.

"With mortgage rates now having eased back as well, these strong migration figures must raise the Reserve Bank's concerns about the likelihood of a second wind for the housing market."

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.

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.


Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

oh joy...more mouths to feed, bodies to house.  Ah but of course ..this will help Auckland to become a vibrant and liveable city. 

Dont worry Rastus , these figures are likely to be hopelessly wrong if the article on this site last week was anything to go by.

Where are all the services for them?
In particular the new arrivals (as opposed to returnees) will require much greater demand for services. So Auckland gets screwed again because they will almost all want to live within walking distance of Auckland airport.
So much for our "most liveable city"

Your comment implies ALL international students and foreign workers leave at the end of their stay
It might be more accurate to say that many intending migrants use these entry methods to obtain permanent status
It might be better to enquire as to how many never leave, alternatively you could try and establish that they all eventually do actually leave

That's just rubbish, as I am sure you realise. The monthly visitor and migrant stats are the result of the compulsory forms submitted when you enter and leave the country. "Counted again when they choose to stay" is just something you just made up. Doing that just tears your cred to shreds.

you seem to have overlooked your departure card - have you ever examined one?
Arrived - departed - re-arrived

...and where are all the jobs for all these people ......or are they bought here on the pretence that there are "jobs & business opportunites for Africa"..... OR IS IT  that they will keep the Auckland property "ponzi scheme" going ??? ......because we all know the vast majority will head for Auckland.

Too many, too quickly. 
Good article on 'How mass migration hurts us all by a left wing economuist from the UK. Consider this - UK pop 63 million gets 200,000 migrants (0.3%), NZ population 4.5 million with 48,000 (1%). 

Geez one hopes we wake up long, long before that, the world seems to be going through a certifiably mad stage at the moment. At the risk of repeating myself, all the result of too damned many of us.

So a humans quality of life should be dictated to the lottery of where they happen to be born in the world?
The reduction in quality of life (if there actually is any) of incumbent NZ'ers due to immigrants is much less than the increase in quality of life the immigrants gain in moving here.

In the lottery of life a lot of things can dictate what your quality of life may be, where you are born is just one of them.
So how many do reckon is enough?

That is indeed one of the lotteries of life.

As is which genetalia you got, and whether it matches how you feel.
Who your parents are, and what their social standing with locals is.
Did you come out with faster intellect or other disadvantage or advantage.

Until you're churning out the certified clones, into the creche factories, that uncertainity lottery is what you get.  That is why we have to slow immigration to allow our own people to have a chance to catch up.

So if you were unfortunate to be born with another sort of disadvantage, e.g a deformity, and say there was a way to correct this deformity (e.g surgery), that would cost everyone (say tax payer) a very small amount each, you would suggest that no help be offered on the basis that 'tough, lifes not fair'?
Being lucky enough to be born in NZ (like myself) gives you not right to deny others the benefits our country offers; they already have to go through a lot more pain just to get here, just to be at the same point where those born here are starting from.

Well, yeah it does, Simon, all countries have some sort of limitations for immigration and so we should have ours. We have every right to say what we want our country to look like in the future, you might want millions more people here, plenty of us don't. It is our small population that makes life here so good, so even you can see what a burgeoning population could soon do to that.
I don't mind immigration per se but floods of it, no thanks, all the same

I don't remember you paying out for me.....

Simple test Simon.  put your money where your mouth is.

Are you saying government shouldn't act for thr good of its citizens (in a democracy?
Key is saying NZrs should live in apartments.

We're saying that anyone who believes the government _are_ acting for the good of it's ciztizens is a fool.... (case in point, key wanting Fonterra and NZ farmers to take a massive loss by not trading with Russia)

Now Cowboy, I think youre making a big assumption in saying that because what youre actually saying is that you think you're more qualified and better informed than Key to say whats for the greater good of NZers overall. I'm sure you're not  better qualified and do perhaps have a small bias ?

It's funny to see how some complain about a quick/large immigration issue.
Lets have a look at some of these "immigrants"

  • Young people with Working Holiday Visas (like myself when I first came to NZ) who are required to come with a Health insurance, with proof of enough funds and with restrictions to work no more than 3 months for the same employer and, in some cases, no more than 6 months overall.

    I can honestly say: you are lucky as a country to receive thousands of young people each year that come to do jobs that some locals don't want to do (like temporary horticulture for minimum salary) and end up spending most of the money in local economy (tourism, activities, consumption).


  • Lets have a look at some other "immigrants": the skilled immigrants that come to occupy positions in highly demanded sectors that contribute to NZ's wealth and future (this is my case after I was offered a quialified job during my working holiday visa and I decided to stay for a while). Not bad to have quialified immigrants that bring overseas skills and different points of view. And, of course, people and skills in which NZ has not spent a single dollar in their education and come in their productive age!!
  • Lets have a look at the student "immigrants", usually from rich families who come basically to spend FOREIGN money into New Zealand (into Universities, accommodation, taxes, shops..). Yes, some of them remain in the country after finishing studies but ONLY if they are offered jobs. So if there are job offers there are people needed.
  • And finally, lets have a look at the remaining "immigrants" that seem to be the less welcomed ones: Family reunion category. Parents and dependants that must proof a high income. Often asians with a lot of money that "drive house prices up" BUT ALSO British. Yes, yes.. did you forget to mentiont that also "drive MANY New Zealanders wealth up"? Or immigrants are only good when they buy but not when they start selling?
    Or.. maybe is it about culture supremacy and the fear to become one day the minority race? I ask this mainly because I never listen to complains about so many British coming to NZ..

My opinion: The immigration will stop as soon as immigrants are not needed. So far there is demand of people because there are jobs. The more people, the more consumption, the more New Zealand benefits from it.
If the problem is that this new wealth that immigration brings is not properly spread don't point at immigrants, point at the system that is designed as a PONZI schema.

If I were you I would be more concerned about the fact that despite having so much immigration and a whole city rebuild in Christchurch the economy does not grow based on productivity but based on consumption/debt. So don't worry, immigration will eventually stop and population in NZ decrease.

Oh dear.  Bit of the race card thrown in as well - no comment on that. 
More people more comsumption more benfits.  If you hadn't noticed, the rest of the world is imploding due to too many consumers  - you think we need more?  Are you insane?
You say you came for a job,  but you are being simplistic in that - you know you came here for many other things, such as our environment, our people, our welfare system our justice system and so on. 
Too many newbies at once importing their own morals, principles, cultures and the like will destroy what makes this counrty a good place to live.. 
Open your eyes and think about how to retain the character of the country you have adopted and not how to turn into the mess occuring elsewhere.  Time to turn the tap down.

Imploding due to too many consumers? What world? Not this :)

Unless what worries you is overconsumption in NZ and not in the rest of the world, but that would simply mean consuming MORE what we produce in NZ and exporting LESS what we produce in NZ. The overall global consumption will remain as long as global population remain.
What's imploding is a world with a huge over-investment / over-production and a lack of demand that is causing a deflation in a system that needs constant grow. And if New Zealand wants to survive in that future world maybe it needs to start developing its inner markets and producing things other than commodities and expecting good money in exchange.
Aren't you surprised of the fact that most of the central banks everywhere are printing money non-stop and yet inflation is at its minimum (in basic consumption products).

The "character" of the country I have adopted (a bit of personal attack there) is as diverse as its people. NZ might have a lot of commercials and marketing about what kiwis are and what kiwis aren't
Kiwis like playing around the water, kiwis like bargains, kiwis like the outdoors, kiwis like bbq..
but gues what, some other people/countries like that too :). That does not describe any culture or character at all, that is an attempt to build a unified feeling of nation and culture from media/government but the truth is that NZ is a newborn country with not a well-defined culture but the inherited by its immigrants (a mix of British culture, Continental European, Pacific Islanders, Chinese and Indian).
So.. no. There is no risk of "destroying" what it doesn't exist. Only risk to increase it.
If there is a character in New Zealand is precisely the multi-diversity character capable of co-existing peacefully in a SINGLE civilization (same rules for everbody, and that's what should remain like it is).
But it's interesting to see that you refused to comment on the race card to immediately imply that the more immigration the more risk to destroy what "we" have. It's not me who has to open the eyes I think.

You have completely rubbed out and eliminated the "maori" from our history

Broadly grouped under his 'pacific islanders' category.  We were all immigrants at one point, even Maori. The 'I was here first' mentality reminds me of pre-schoolers fighting in a sand pit. 

At the risk of sounding harsh muntijaqi, the answer is not to flood NZ with more and more people, the answer lies in other countries who are breeding themselves to crazy unsustainable numbers to stop that, reduce their numbers and maybe they can find a bit of what we have here, there.

It's a perfect valid opinion :)
But not all the countries are increasing population. An example:
My country, Spain, is loosing population every year (currently above 40 million). It was increasing population while there were plenty of jobs (huge construction bubble) until 45 million (yet we exported food). And believe me, MANY many people would love to live in Spain (I'd like to go back but unemployment is 25% so I'm being reasonable for now..), but not at the price of being unemployed. And Spain has a larger welfare than New Zealand.
That's why my point is basically: Don't worry, if there is immigration right now is MAINLY because there are jobs and investment opportunities. The moment there aren't jobs or economic conditions are better somewhere else (or in our countries of origin) people will leave this beautiful but remote piece of land. In the exact same way as when conditions were better in Australia migration flows in NZ were negative.
I honestly think people here exagerate a bit (a lot) with this migration situation and I don't get it. I understand for a remote country like NZ with extremely low population (the density of population is amongst the less populated countries in the world) it can be a bit surprising to gain some tens of thousands per year. But you have to understand that it's quite shocking for some of us (Europeans, Americans or Asians) to see panic about "too much immigration in New Zealand" as if in a few years there would not be any food left!
I have lived in south island and there were days I was driving and didn't see a single car on some roads! :)
PS: Also I think NZ should feel lucky to get the kind of immigration they get and having the option to control it in the way they can. Some other countries really get flooded with illegal immigrants that from a financial point of view don't contribute precisely to increase country's wellbeing (although there are humanitarian reasons that cannot/should not be measured in terms of money)

So what you see there is the problem we need to sort out is how to prosper without growth, whoever truly nuts that one out can expect some form of immortality. Tim Jackson gave it a crack in 2009 with his book Prosperity without growth. As long as we refuse to address it then the more imperitive it will become that we do.
In some ways NZ being so small it is possibly one of the last places that, compared to the rest of the world, looks like it could absorb a bit or a lot more growth. Trouble is, NZ is still part of the world and allowing NZ to take off and grow at a rate the rest of the world can and should no longer do is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Just because we aren't by world standards overly populated, does not mean we need millions more.
People are slowly beginning to wake up to the fact that endless growth is not possible, but can't really see what to do about it.

Read Robert Putmans study on diversity and social cohesion. It found that diversity destroys civic engagement (sucks).

You confuse character with culture.  Its about demand not about the origins of the demandee.

"NZ might have a lot of commercials and marketing about what kiwis are and what kiwis aren't"

The media aren't the people...well not yet anyway.
The trip isn't the same as reading the brochure.
don't be fooled by advertising trying to sell you things.   Except for this second hand car...and this bridge.. the're kiwi awesomeness, and a great deal, (great deal, in one single pay , great discount for cash)... it says so here in the media that it's great...

The Savings Working Group recommend we look at immigration as it has had a negative impact on the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

"The more people, the more consumption, the more New Zealand benefits from it."
So if the NZ population reaches the 1,252,000,000 of India or the 1,368,000,000 of China everything will be fine and dandy in this country.
"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"   Prof. Albert Bartlett

I am confused .
2036 less 1821  DOES NOT  equal  17 ?
Any 6 year old could tell you that

The October data is this ...
........................  Arrivals  ........  Departures  ............  Net
NZ citizens  ....... 1,145  .............  1,470  .................  (325)
AU citizens  .........  288  ................  101  ..................  187
Other citizens  ......  281  ................  126  ..................  155
Totals ................  1,714  .............  1,697  ....................  17

I am confused X2
Any visit to Auckland Airport one sees literally thousands of Pacfific Islanders , yet they never feature in the migration numbers
We see and hear thousands of Pacific Island  and South African accents in Auckland , the North Shore is swamped with South Africans , yet they NEVER feature in the migration numbers?
So according to the numbers there are more German and French migrants than Pasifika's or South Africans ?
These numbers  from the NZIS simply cannot be trusted , as they dont appear to bear any relationship to the reality of what we experience

NZ Statistics Census 2013 data, South African are included in European Category

You can obtain the Pasifika data where
The increase in ethnic population between 2006-2013 census

2006-2013 increase
NZL 42800
AKL 24000

NZL 344,000
AKL 227,000

2006-2013 increase
NZL 97000
AKL 80000

NZL 541,000
AKL 349,000

What are you talking about? There is a mountain of data released by Stats NZ on migration patterns in impressive detail covereing every country and every citizenship. Everything features in the immigration numbers. Good grief, there is even data for the United Arab Emerites in their top level releases. In their detailed data releases (Infoshare) you can find about people travelling from Curacao, Mayotte, even St Pierre and Miquelon. The last thing Stats NZ can be accused of is "not enough detail".
Certainly South African citizen movements, along with nearly every Pacific nation appears in their top level data releases.