- Auckland 1.2%
- Nelson 1.1%
- Waikato 0.8%
- Tasman 0.8%
- Taranaki 0.7%
- Wellington 0.7%
- Otago 0.6%
- Bayof Plenty 0.6%
- Canterbury 0.5%
- Southland 0.4%
- West Coast 0.4%
- Hawke’s Bay 0.3%
- Northland 0.3%
- Marlborough 0.3%
- Manawatu-Wanganui 0.0%
- Gisborne -0.3%
The Auckland growth of 1.2% just over half of the growth rate the Auckland Council are using in their plans. Unless there is some reason to think the change is temporary, their plans should incorporate the new data.
The only region to shrink is Gisborne, which is good. A shrinking regional population makes it very hard to attract jobs and investment.
Of the 68 territorial authorities, 18 shrunk and 50 grew. The Ruapehu District shrunk the most at an annual average of 1.9% a year and the Selwyn District grew the most at 4.1% a year,
Within Auckland the smallest growth was 0.6% a year in five board areas. Albert-Eden had the lowest growth. The highest growth was in Upper Harbour at 3.3% a year.
At an area unit level Burwood has had a 63% reduction in population over seven years, Middlemore 62%, Kaiapoi East 59%, Cathedral Square 54%.
The biggest growth is Mission Heights from 48 people to 2,532 which is a 5175% growth over seven years.
Taranakians are leaving the province in droves because they’re being forgotten by the National Government, Labour leader David Cunliffe says.
Mr Cunliffe said Census data released today would show a widespread exodus from the regions as provincial New Zealanders flee forgotten small towns.
He said these towns had been gutted by the hands off approach of the National Government.
That’s an epic fail. Instead Taranaki grew by 0.7% a year, which is the fifth largest in the country. Does this mean David Cunliffe will now “blame” National for the 5,484 extra people now living in Taranaki over the last seven years? That compares to just 1,266 extra people in Taranaki in the five years before that (2001 to 2006).
The lesson for the Labour leader is wait until the data is released before you spin it. Telling the local paper the figures would show an exodus when it fact shows population growth three times stronger than the previous period is again a rather epic fail.