NZ's population grows at fastest rate ever in year to June on the back of surging migration

NZ's population grows at fastest rate ever in year to June on the back of surging migration

New Zealand's population increased by nearly 100,000 people in the year to June, it's biggest annual increase ever, with most of the rise coming from migration.

Statistics New Zealand estimates this country's population grew by 97,300 in the year to June, taking the total population to an estimated 4,693,000.

Migration had by far the greatest impact on population growth, accounting for 69,100 (71%) of the total increase, compared to the natural population increase (the excess of births over deaths) of 28,200 (29%) over the same period.

That meant the country's population grew by 2.1% in the year to June, which was high by historical standards.

"The last time we experienced population growth over 2% was in 1974, and before that, at the peak of the baby boom in the 1950s and early 1960s," Statistics NZ senior manager Jo-Anne Skinner said.

According to Statistics NZ's figures, this country's population growth has more than quadrupled over the last four years, driven primarily by surging migration.

In the year to June 2012, the country's population increased by just 24,100, which was entirely driven by the natural increase in the population of 31,500, which was reduced by a net loss of 3200 people due to negative migration flows, with more people leaving the country than coming to it during that period (see table below)..

Since then, the natural increase in the population has drifted steadily downwards, ticking up slightly in the year to June.

But the natural increase of just 28,200 in the year to June 2016 still remains well below the natural increase of 36,200 that occurred in the year to June 2010.

The high level of migration also means that the population is becoming slightly younger, on average, with the median age of all residents falling from 37.6 years in 2013 to 37.1 years now.

That's because nearly 80% of the net migration gain was from people aged under 35.

Statistics NZ estimates that 20% of the country's population (921,500 people) is aged under 15 years, 65% (3,073,200) are aged between 15 and 64 years, and 15% (698,400) are aged 65 and older.

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).

its alright JK said it is a good thing all these people want to come to NZ.
pity he forgot about the ones already living here


Look, he was just talking to someone the other day in the Koru lounge who said they love the high levels of immigration.

Exactly what New Zealand needs at this time considering the fast ageing population,low birth rates below replacement level & 40,000-50,000 Kiwis that moved to Australia annually over the last 15 years.

The median age of Pakeha is 41, Asian is 30, Maori is 24 & Pasifika is 22.

Asians,Maori & Pasifika all now have higher median birth rates than Pakeha.

The Australian population grew by the total population of New Zealand in just the last 13 years. 28% of the Australian population or 6.6 million people is foreign-born which is the highest in the Developed world.

New Zealand is expected to have more people over 65+ than under 15 within the next 2 decades.

Kiwis are the second highest nationality per capita living overseas just behind the Irish. 1 million+ Kiwis live overseas & 650,000 Kiwis live in Australia which is 15% of the total NZ population.

Migration to New Zealand needs to be spread out equally across all of New Zealand.


"Kiwis are the second highest nationality per capita living overseas just behind the Irish."

Well, sheez, that tells a story, doesn't it..


Ever stopped to consider that birth rates are below replacement because the kiwi population have been priced out of housing (and children)?

Not that the world needs more people anyway. Quite the opposite and it's not the responsibility of New Zealand to facilitate the overbreeding of the rest of the planet.

And the whole finger wagging, "don't have children till you can afford them". Trouble is now, for 50% of the population it means mother nature and biological clocks intervene before that can be achieved.

LOL you may not have noticed the people who can least afford it, are having by far the most kids.

Yes I have, that is not a phenomena confined to NZ, and again, educated and participating women pretty much put an end to that.

Not if you give it more than a superficial examination.

Sorry, when women, as a demograph are well educated, participating in society/the economy, birth rates drop.

haha, can't win eh? there is always an argument for and against ... but increasing population is a good thing ..right? its a No brainer ... especially if you assume that 1/2 of the immigrants are highly qualified people contributing to the country's advancement -- Right?
Why are we so pessimistic all the time - what happened to seeing the bright side of things for a change?
Side effects? heaps, but nothing we cannot tolerate -- just look at the big picture -- i say it is great to have more people and the rate of increase is not disastrous as the title of this article is suggesting ....

How many more? What is the magic number that you can say is enough?

I'd like you to please explain exactly why increasing the population is a good thing? Because you have been brainwashed is why.

just wait a few years. As soon as the bubble burst and unemployment increases and salaries decrease MANY will flee NZ and others won't want to come back.
Don't worry and take advantage of immigration until then.
And by taking advantage I don't mean ripping them off and selling them houses and farms..
I mean collect more taxes for a better education for NZers, invest in sectors that can survive crisis better (industry rather than services), and so on.


New Zealander's would benefit if the population reduced. If we have say a million or less we would each be better off economically, the place would be great to live in, and the world would be better off.
Endlessly planning for more people is not a game that will work out.

how do you reduce the population without it aging?

Smaller families, delayed reproduction, both easily gained when women are fully educated and participating in society, and yes it does age, but we have technology and machinery taking jobs, the taxes they pay can support............... oh. But that is how it could work

Japan beats us at everything that matters, despite selling more adult diapers, than baby diapers. Another thoughtless propaganda soundbite spewed forth as undisputed truth, well I beg to dispute the undisputable.

Simple Dave. A stable or reducing population simply has a different age profile than a ballooning one. But the difference is not a problem if you think it through. Increased cost of ageing is balance by decreased cost of education etc. The cost of extra infrastructure for ballooning populations can't be met right now. A stable population eliminates that cost. A small population spread over the same area means they will live in the best places.
And there is no great problem with the aged anyway. Sure thing we all die of something, but the reality is that most people age and die without years of dependency.
A population that is more weighted with older people has just different weightings of demand. But not a problem.

How? If the population reduced New Zealand would end up with a very much much older population with the remaining youth having to carry more of the taxpayer burden of keeping Government pensions sustainable for the very fast growing elderly demographic in New Zealand.

How would reducing the population benefit Kiwis? The South Island has a population density similar to Tasmania. Only 24% of the total NZ population lives in the South Island.

Japan has low birth rates & fast ageing population which isn't benefiting them. A country with the biggest debt to GDP percentage of any country in the world.

The NZ Government is already having difficulty of keeping NZ Government pensions sustainable.

Pakeha are still declining in median birth rates while Asians,Maori & Pasifika have higher median birth rates than Pakeha.

33.4% of the NZ population lives in Auckland. More people live in Auckland than in the entire South Island. Only 1 million people live in the South Island which is the bigger of the 2 main Islands of New Zealand.

Sydney has a population of 5 million people which is bigger than all of New Zealand. New Zealand has a total population smaller than most cities around the world.

New Zealand has a landmass the size of the United Kingdom with a population the size of Ireland.

NZ is already a great place to live in compared to most of the World when you look at the social & economic stats of New Zealand.

well put Crow22, anyone who likes to have less population can move in with the possums in some west coast bush and leave the misery of handling too many people to the rest of us who hate possums.


there would be a lot of us living in the bush , over 60%

Very silly Eco bird. Maybe with fewer people around we would choose to live in a warm substantial house, on ideal site beside a beautiful beach or lake. We could afford it because we were not paying insane costs of infrastructure growth, and price competition for the best places would not be severe.

eco bird wants mega apartment style blocks for as far as the eye can see, so we can fit in the same amount of people as Tokyo. Driving for miles past row, after row, after row of these massive apartments. It's an eye opening sight.

Sayeth one account to the other account lol

Been there, done that, best years of my life. Everyone should do it at least once in their life.


After a point all adding more people does is mean that there is more competition for resources and land. How you think this will improve quality of life is beyond me. Look at most 3rd world countries and you'll find the vast majority have very high populations compared to their resource bases which is no coincidence.

To address another point, the South Island also has a large mountain range called 'The Southern Alps' therefore a fair amount of land is mountainous so it's a bit disingenuous to claim it has 'lots of land' based on land mass alone, unless you see building houses at 2000m on mountains an easy task.
In regards to Japan, they are severely overpopulated when compared to their land mass and resource base. Japan has little natural resources and are completely dependent on importing resources to keep their lights on. If world events ever led to a supply disruption they'd be toast.

We need to move past the retarded notion that 'growth is good at all costs'. Will you be cheering for 'more growth' when you are diagnosed with cancer? Unfortunately economic thinking prevails over rational thought and common sense. There are hard physical limits exist in this world and clearly an ever growing population is not a sustainable plan. The frustrating thing is that this kind of thinking leads to the following pattern:

1) Population increases.
2) We need more people to pay for increase.
3) Population increases.
4) We need more people to pay for increase. (Repeat ad infinitum until country becomes overpopulated sh*thole)

We are lucky that NZ is underpopulated, this is the reason why quality of life is viewed as being so good - i.e. you're not competing with 50 million other people for a house, job or resources. Why people want to throw all this away to become like almost every other country on the planet is beyond me.

I'm not talking very high populations though like India or China. The USA has a population of 324 million people (3rd largest country by population in the world) yet I wouldn't exactly call it a 3rd world country.

NZ isn't expected to reach 5 million people until 2020.

Russia isn't a Developed country with a small population density of (8.24) & is largest country in the world by landmass.

Most 3rd world countries are that way due to very major corruption within their own Governments enriching themselves not because of their population size as 3rd world countries too also have very small populations.

Think of Zimbabwe for example it was doing well economically as Rhodesia with a economic boom in the 1970's until Mugabe took over & its now become a shithole.

Severely overpopulated? Most of Japan's population just lives in Honshu. Japan is the most technological advanced country on Earth with a population of 120 million people. Hokkaido has a population similar to Scotland or Norway.

Most 3rd world countries are fast developing & have very strong GDP growth.

I can think of many 3rd world countries with small populations Vanuatu,Solomon Islands,Papua New Guinea,Fiji,Republic of the Congo, Guyana,Botswana,Namibia,Mauritania,Gabon,Djibouti,Liberia,Guinea-Bissau,Lesotho,East Timor,The Gambia,Equatorial Guinea,Swaziland,Jamaica,Libya,Suriname.

A country being 3rd world or Developed comes down to how corrupt the Government of that country is not its population size.

The more people thing does not have a fullstop, the system that relies on growing population ALWAYS relies on growing population, there is no optimum number, look at how many Japan got to and now is failing in that system. It is a totally different way of thinking and doing things that can solve this problem, perhaps if we embrace that we have to reduce not increase human numbers on the planet, then we can rely on technology and machinery to fill the gaps that an ever increasing population might have. This is where the UBI comes in, now.


The USA has an enormous landmass.

Not long ago people were saying all would be well in NZ when we reached 4 million people, now that's in the rear view mirror and I'm 'sure' things will be better once we reach '6 million'... Or '10 million'... Or '20 million'...

Japan is horrendously overpopulated. Shut off food imports and how many people do you think their island would naturally support? A heck of a lot less.

Ah GDP, the be all and end all of the human existence. How dare I question it, blasphemy!

I think we have quite different definitions of overpopulation. I use the definition of overpopulation as being more people in an area than the area can support indefinitely (carrying capacity), you seem to frame your argument on economics terms rather than long-term sustainability. We're not going to agree.

@ Crow 22, Zimbabwe has always been a shithole if your black.
The 3rd World countries you mention with low populations eg Vanuatu, Solomon islands have superior lifestyles accept as they get access to TV and education there cultures are damaged.
Good old Western World loves to destabilize and then plunder their resources. Our forbears used religion and alcohol. Oh gosh, we still do that as well.

You assume that pensions "have" to be paid. Enough of a demographic shift and us pesky youth will simply vote your pensions away. We know we aren't getting any state pension. Guess what. Neither are you.

Are you instantly assuming that I'm old?

Unfortunately for you the demographic shift is not working in your favour, at 42 Im somewhere in the middle.

I also understand that some turkeys look forward to Christmas.

Growing Maori, Pasifika and Asian population embeds a different cultural attitude to the elderly. I'd expect old people to be better looked after in the future of this country provided we improve our productivity...

New Zealand is a great place to live, and it has a low population. Keep it that way, don't turn it into a clusterfourk like the UK. Are you mad?

As long as not obese with a drain on our health system, attractive ones only as Nz got f all talent.


This rate of immigration might be OK if:

a) The whole process wasn't riddled with fraud, corruption and scams
b) We were addressing a real skill or labour shortage
c) We were capable of building the accommodation and infrastructure necessary to absorb the increase.

That's three out of three epic fails.

Still too many different cultures to assimilate, creates friction.

Yes, particularly in times of increasing stress (which is increasing around the world). This behavior is a well known human trait that has observed across a multitude of studies. Multiculturalism will work in times of abundance but once scarcity rears its head it's a different matter.

Yes, it then comes down to some fundamental law of nature, some devilish calculation, that amounts to, who is more important, my children or yours? Unfortunately many societies around the world, most notably in the West, have decided that having children makes them uncomfortable thus largely taking them out of the game.

What percentage of that 100,000 increase are Chinese?

@ sharetrader Thank you for sharing this link ....

How many chinese?, Well no one knows and no one will tell you .... that report on Newshub is another piece of aimless work designed to agitate people and grab attention to push them blindly behind a certain agenda ..without realising the damage they could do to all.

If you have noticed Andrew Little's remarks about employment and how shallow they were as well as the shallowness of the debate in the chamber you would understand why these people will not succeed in the next elections by keeping their childish behaviour and throwing BS around as if they are talking to possums .... how many kiwi engineers and IT specialists have NZ got unemployed?? how many researchers or highly qualified scientists do we have on the DOL many qualified trades people do we need NOW? --

Irresponsible remarks ( like get off your butt and build some houses!!) are tolerable when they comes from children and illiterates, not from Polys and the head of the "Opposition" what a circus ?
A constructive opposition is essential and useful to the country and they will command our respect, but a childish bullying lot wont even get the possum's vote ! or shall i say Will Only get the possum's votes ...

That spiel seems to come directly from the same people who prep JK for question time.

The Institute of Gibberish.

Every time you fill out an airport form, it asks for ethnicity, every visa, every passport. How on Gods good earth, can they not know? Answer me that please.
The only way they can't know is because they refuse to look, and that is not a reason.


Who cares where all these people are from?
we just don't need or want all these people.

If huge numbers of people are coming in then their backgrounds are important. Your average Kiwi is trained from birth to fit into NZ society while other people are not. Some will be very compatible while others less so. That said, though, you are right, that their origin doesn't matter too much if there are not too many. It is a matter of scale. Even the best and brightest of folk should be limited. Imagine, as a thought exercise, if you imported a million super intelligent and super hard working people into NZ who were distinctly different physically and culturally. The effect could be negative for the native people who would find themselves becoming an under-class tempting them to support a military coup to restore some balance. This is a fairly regular happening thing in history.

NZ Treasury itself was not sure if the benefits exist of high immigration.

extracts below:
"More work is required to assess the potential net benefits of an increase in immigration as part of a strategy to pursue scale and agglomeration effects through increased population, or whether a decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth going forward."

New Zealand immigration policy settings are based on the assumption that the macroeconomic impacts of immigration may be significantly positive, with at worst small negative effects. However, both large positive and large negative effects are possible. Reviewing the literature, the balance of evidence suggests that while past immigration has, at times, had significant net benefits, over the past couple of decades the positive effects of immigration on per capita growth, productivity, fiscal balance and mitigating population ageing are likely to have been modest. There is also some evidence that immigration, together with other forms of population growth, has exacerbated pressures on New Zealand's insufficiently-responsive housing market. Meeting the infrastructure needs of immigrants in an economy with a quite modest rate of national saving may also have diverted resources from productive tradable activities, with negative macroeconomic impacts. Therefore from a macroeconomic perspective, a least regrets approach suggests that immigration policy should be more closely tailored to the economy's ability to adjust to population increase. At a minimum, this emphasises the importance of improving the economy's ability to respond to population increase. If this cannot be achieved, there may be merit in considering a reduced immigration target as a tool for easing macroeconomic pressures. More work is required to assess the potential net benefits of an increase in immigration as part of a strategy to pursue scale and agglomeration effects through increased population, or whether a decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth going forward.

Thank you for sharing this Joe....OMG !!
you see this kind of empty rhetoric makes my blood boil especially when it comes from an important dept in Gov....

I have first hand experience of the waves of immigrants which landed in NZ circa 1994 - 1996 .. most were South Africans, Middle eastern, Indians, in addition to Brits and Aussies -- almost the majority of these people and their spouses or families were highly qualified university graduates and skilled people in their fields - they had a long struggle with being accepted by the NZ businesses and the typical kiwi mind set - but almost all started from scratch and build their way up - fast ... they all came on a skill category point system which almost only let in well english spoken scientist, doctors, Engineers, and highly qualified trades and other experienced people out of a specified skill list -- the total numbers taken then would exceed 80,000 --
20 years on - every single one of these people not only contributed a life time of benefits and knowledge to NZ but payed taxes on high wages and income, raised their families and created another hard working generation of kiwis, built businesses employing hundreds of people, Built and developed properties, and have all done well for themselves because they are hardworking people. Auckland city was almost a tasteless place in those days .. just look at how vibrant it became now....

the following is one of the reasons why NZ is so backwards compared with the rest of the first world ::( their words , not mine)
" More work is required to assess the potential net benefits of an increase in immigration as part of a strategy to pursue scale and agglomeration effects through increased population, or whether a decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth going forward."

so, They want to research which comes first the chicken or the egg? , immigration or infrastructure? Does any one really believe that " decrease in immigration could facilitate lower interest rates, a lower exchange rate, and more balanced growth " ?? are they for real? where is the growth? we have 100,000 extra people pouring billions in the economy and the growth is hardly 3% -- As if lower interest rates and lower FX is related to the head count of the country ... Jesus!! -- isn't any one paying attention that the new comers are all productive people and they are not going on the DOL as soon as they land unlike most of our school leavers ?

My point is, that if Treasury cannot reseach what has actually happened in their own backyard under their own eyes in the last 20 years and learn and analyse it, then they are utterly hopeless people and should be granted early retirement.
Someone has to tell them that the wheel has been invented long time ago and there are few of them here.

Treasury is not a dept of govt. It is an independent, nuetral bureacracy that is to be trusted more than politicians of any ilk and certainly more believable than suspicous newbies running interference for a beleagured naked emperor.

You're a naive idiot if you trust the qualifications from a third world country. I've met a lot of migrants, it's hard not to. You don't need to grow the population just for the fun of it. Nor can you claim that 'vibrancy' is a better social trait than cohesion, and a sense of all being kiwis. Not a sense of being overwhelmed by an onrush of immigrants, with no end in sight. You just want to flood the country with the worlds population, and destroy what we have here. Our piece of paradise, not for sale.


One of the most beautiful things about NZ was its low population. As the population
density rises it becomes more violent, congested and unpleasant to live in. More mouths to feed and more people competing for limited resources. Anyone wanting to live in a high density area should move to India.

This is the foolish thing. We export primary produce, what effect will increasing internal consumption have on our exports? We also are lucky (and proud) that 80% of our electricity is renewable (mainly hydro), what will we happen to this number when the population and electricity consumption increases?

Unless God or someone blows the whistle and says alright humans everybody back to where they came from or a descended from, eg, British back to UK, Americans back to trump,Indians back to India !Asians back to Asia multi cultures not working. Then NZ would belong to the Maori So only they really have a right to complain about immigrants.

that is a very good point


This is not about race, colour or creed... and if NZ went back to its original inhabitants, it would belong to the birds. And you can ask any old Moa if they want more humans in Godzone.

As a Maori, I have no issue with immigration per se. Rather, I have all the concerns expressed on this and other sites: how many, with what skills, and where and what are they going to do.

Well the maori weren't the first to settle here, ask better the maori leave it to the ginger maori, who were here first, and are now nearly gone.


As someone commented earlier one of the best things about NZ was the low population. In a short time I have seen that change and if it continues I don't see that as a positive for NZ. We are "clean" and "green" because we don"t have a huge population. More and more people are certain to change that. Isn't it obvious!

The clean and green image will be the least of our worries. Immigration at this level will drastically alter the cultural and political landscape too.


People are not asking for zero immigration. They are asking for a reasonable immigration level which can be adjusted when necessary.

Immigration for immigration sake is not a good enough excuse. In the 90s nz didn't have the highest house prices relative to incomes in the world. In the 90s gdp per capita wasn't at a stand still.

Also we need to ensure we are getting highly skilled immigrants. People I know in tech struggle to find candidates. There is also the issue of the fact large numbers come over on parent visas which seems crazy when we already have an ageing population. Why bring in more pensioners.

Eco bird are you part of Nationals PR spin machine ?

Not at all Joe, ... I am actually a real Joe Bloggs you might say ... do not like politicians or parties .. i am a pragmatic person and interested in economy and good life after a long working life ... I call it as it is ... Don't have bosses , don't need money ....People interpret my comments depending on their affiliation and what they like to hear ... you will notice that I can be critical of the NATs at times when they are wrong ...
Oh, and I was a labour voter for years


You are either a paid troll, or a brainwashed idiot. Poes law.

I rest my case


If migration flows are too great from too many diverse sources there is grave danger of a loss of identity. A common theme on the threads is the loss of the Kiwi traditional way of doing things (like everyone owning their own house) and yet anyone seeking to preserve or restore that state is accused of being not Kiwi in their thinking and attitude as it would necessarily require some degree of exclusion. It is quite an odd situation we are in really.
The other day this site linked to The Most Reputable Countries in the World which had the following list of top ten countries:

New Zealand

It would seem to me to make sense to analyse the common factor that these countries have and try and preserve whatever it is that puts them at that high level. At least be fairly careful to keep the proportions, of whatever it is, roughly the same. These countries are where they are today because of the generally stable and sensible milieu found there that developed as a result of a historical process. Massive immigration is not likely to improve countries that are already highly refined although it will definitely improve the lot of the migrants, at least the first waves. It would only be a win/win situation if migration was carefully managed and not allowed to get out of control. If 20 million people were encouraged to emigrate to NZ it would become an entirely different country.

"It would seem to me to make sense to analyse the common factor that these countries have and try and preserve whatever it is that puts them at that high level."

That's dangerous thinking! Check your list again, friend. Remember, society is not simply a matter of policy and numbers.

I think this trend of replacement will most certainly be allowed to get out of control. Not only will new demographics replace generations of Kiwis, they will be bring new cultural issues that will later on translate to a different political atmosphere (especially one that accepts even more immigrants).

You said "anyone seeking to preserve or restore that state is accused of being not Kiwi in their thinking". Welcome to the 21st century for Western Europeans. This is a result of the dominant ideology of our time. The managerial liberalists do not care about preserving local culture, infact they often see it as an intolerant obstacle to the maximisation of efficiencies in the global economic system--free movement of labour and capital.

National identity is now treated as a stage for the expression of a liberal, multicultural global political ideology, nothing more. This top-down identity embraces tolerance, openness, inclusiveness, respect for individual freedom, and multiculturalism. Everything else is largely arbitrary. Follow this logic long enough and you get the gross levels of cultural self-abnegation on display in Sweden, whose stewards have for years been desperately trying to give away the rightful cultural and economic inheritance of ethnic Swedes to alien cultures from the middle east and africa. The results speak for themselves.

Remember, society is not simply a matter of policy and numbers.

Exactly, those ten countries are following the Nordic model of social democracy or something very similar to it. Has anyone managed to replicate it without a significant Nordic element in their populations? Am I allowed to ask that question?Japan possibly? An Asian country that developed a love for all things Western European. It is almost like what has happened is the model hasn't exported to other countries other than through massive colonialism (Aus, NZ, C) so the challenge is on to prove that it still works when the previous population that made it work becomes a minority.

You have improved your arguments Zach of Epsom
Two well reasoned responses
Has the mothership inserted new circuitry ?
Seriously hope youve taken the chance sell down a few houses
Youll be wishing in the not too distant future if you have not
I shouldnt be too concerned about migrant numbers folks
I've watched migrants use NZ as their stepping stone to better bigger cities in the world for decades
With over 1 million kiwis living overseas NZ needs to consider why migrants will stay long term if they can acquire residency in NZ to use for their next stop elsewhere.
NZ is a lovely place but it will remain the end of the world, exotic but still detached by distance & timezone
My advice sell up and get out
Why suffer in congestion and pretend youre living in Gods Own ?

I'm aware my comments may come across as those of someone suffering from a split personality. This is because I try to stay within the rules and to a certain extent the spirit of this web site. I'm opposed to general socialism that is blind to identity and seeks general equality and will thus lock horns occasionally with people who promote that. I'm also opposed to Libertarians who see everyone as a blank sheet with no mind to historical processes and the influences, good and bad, that history has. I'm also aware that my politics and philosophy (Nouvelle Droite) are currently in the minority so I have to play the game and follow rules and take advantage of capitalism in order to prosper and survive.
All I can do is point out things like a court jester, like hey, those ten countries, can you see what they have in common?
Another thing occurs to me about the top ten in the list, they are considered the most reputable. It is probably a fact that many in our society don't really want a good reputation. It's not a driving force for them as it is for the "male, pale and stale" people although I dare say they enjoy the benefits such as effective social welfare.


Immigration lowers wages and cuts govt spending per capita. It is not by chance but a very thoughtful decision by the govt, to reach their ideological dream. Kill the middle class.

Forget about it, our country is done. It isn't ours anymore.

Yes. But it's nowhere near as good an economic proposition as it was 10-15 years ago is it?
Nz houses are no longer cheap relative to the UK, and the exchange rate is very different.

True.The Wealthy French have fled France due to v high wealth taxes. I suspect other wealthy Europeans will end up doing the same. I think we will see wealthier Europeans moving to NZ which should be good for the economy.