The gap closes with Australia

July 22nd, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

austmigration

 

The latest monthly stats are out.

It is looking pretty likely that in the next year we will have positive net migration from Australia for the first time ever. But I don’t think it will happen before the election. I am looking forward to Labour and NZ First campaigning on we have too many Australians living here.

The net migration with Australia was 20 more departures than arrivals in June 2014 month and 8,250 for the year.

In June 2013 the net loss was 3,210 for the month and 21,560 for the year.

In June 2012 the net loss was 4,590 for the month and 39,680 for the year.

Tags:

17 Responses to “The gap closes with Australia”

  1. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    For a minute there I thought we must be ‘catching up with Australia’, like Mr Key promised.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,317 comments) says:

    The gap that matters is the income gap.Oz is sooooooo far ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    I suppose if we had open borders and Sub Saharan Africans flooded in David Farrar would be crowing about it too: look how successful we are!?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    I am looking forward to Labour and NZ First campaigning on we have too many Australians living here.

    Executive Summary
    Relative to other OECD countries, New Zealand has high rates of population inflow and
    outflow. These are related: there has been a deliberate policy choice since the early
    1990s to more than replace departing New Zealanders with immigrants. Significant
    benefits were anticipated from increasing the number and quality of people working within
    New Zealand’s reformed economy and institutions.

    Until 1986, New Zealand operated a ‘Country-of-origin’ immigration system which gave
    preference to migrants from specific countries. The points system that replaced this in
    1991 initially allowed all people who gained or exceeded the points target to gain
    residence status and there was no attempt to link labour market demand to the specific
    skills of the migrants. From 1995, changes were progressively made, which among other
    things increased the focus on labour demand. From 2001 there has been a Cabinet-
    approved target for the number of immigrants to be granted residence.

    In considering the case for large positive effects of migration, this paper explores the
    possible roles of factor price equalisation, different migrant characteristics, capital
    utilisation, scale and agglomeration, and international connectedness, and the scope for
    migration to mitigate population ageing and generate positive fiscal impacts. The balance
    of evidence suggests that none of these elements presently generate large positive
    impacts, although it is possible that the effects of international connectedness and scale
    and agglomeration operate with long lags. The only likely future source of large positive
    effects is the possibility that greater scale and agglomeration, coupled with migrant
    diversity, could lead to increased innovation.

    Taken together, the available evidence on the possibility of large positive and negative
    effects suggests that a least regrets immigration policy for New Zealand would involve
    improvements to the economy’s capacity to adjust to population increase; setting
    immigration targets with this capacity in mind; and commissioning further work to establish
    the likely impacts of substantially increasing or decreasing immigration flows. In addition
    to undertaking additional analysis to assess the empirical validity of Reddell’s hypothesis,

    it would be helpful to investigate how much higher New Zealand’s population would need
    to be in order to generate large benefits from any resulting scale and agglomeration
    effects.

    Before concluding, the paper raises other important effects which should be considered
    alongside macroeconomic effects in the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework.
    Although this paper does not explore any of these effects in detail, a fully informed
    migration policy will need to compare these effects against the macroeconomic evidence
    surveyed in this paper.
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10
    Reddell is the unsung hero here but the toady from Bangladesh gets the airwaves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,887 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Why don’t you have a look at the relative take home pay instead of wages. Then have a look at how much more of that take home pay is soaked up in state gummint and local gummint charges and fees. Start of with ten percent stamp duty on house and car purchase in most stated. Then have a look at how much Aussies pay for prescriptions compared with how much Kiwis pay. Then have a look at how many km the average Aussie has to drive c/f NZ. Ever heard of the tyranny of distance?

    Reality is that there is little difference in the ‘well offness’ of people in both countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. UrbanNeocolonialist (286 comments) says:

    The economic gap is pretty huge, but NZ is at least starting to come back, has a growing economy and lots of positive indicators. Australia surged last decade but looking wobbly now.
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/AU-NZ?display=graph

    Would interesting to see just how much money those returning kiwis are bringing back vs those leaving – must be >100k average which might be adding a couple of billion to NZ’s balance of trade.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Farrar (1,889 comments) says:

    HJ: If they qualified as skilled migrants, then I don’t care where they come from. Only a racist would care. I don’t advocate open immigration. We have quite serious restrictions on who can come here based on skills, education, income, wealth, language skills etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. adze (2,105 comments) says:

    hj would you object if the immigrants were all anglo-saxon and likely to vote NZ First?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    I am looking forward to Labour and NZ First campaigning on we have too many Australians living here.

    It’s not all Australians though.
    I suspect there is quite a number of Kiwis returning home.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Actaully I am not sure whether the comparison with Australia is really all that meaningful.

    Sure it’s an interesting figure but ultimately the overall net immigartion is relevant. Ozzie-Kiwi migration is but a side story.

    Overall net migration is up 38,000 for the year (100,000 arrivals vs 62,000 departures)
    The highest net migration by far if I read the data you liked to correctly.

    So actually the Aussie-Kiwi migration is still behind the overall trend.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,853 comments) says:
    July 22nd, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    HJ: If they qualified as skilled migrants, then I don’t care where they come from. Only a racist would care. I don’t advocate open immigration. We have quite serious restrictions on who can come here based on skills, education, income, wealth, language skills etc.
    ……..
    But “only a small proportion of existing migrants address specific skill needs” and the Government is specifically trying to grow the population in the hopes of achieving agglomeration benefits.

    Only a small proportion of existing migrants address specific skill needs. While it is
    difficult to be certain about counterfactuals, key skills shortages could still be addressed
    with substantially lower immigration. With lower immigration, labour market flexibility and
    possible offsets from reduced emigration would likely play a greater role in addressing skills pressures.

    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10

    The evidence is that booming Auckland is booming on it’s construction sector; the Sir Paul Callaghan industries are thin on the ground.

    “Only a racist would care”
    Does this mean people have no right to express a preference for the status quo as per national identity? National identity is a bit like being in a movie: your enjoying John Wayne but all of a sudden someone changes it and your watching Bruce Lee.
    Would any of our leaders have had the guts to get up and explain what (they knew) was going to happen? It started under Labour (no wonder they aren’t trusted) and National continues thanks to lobbying by the property sector.

    There is a difference between people filtering in (as Japanese did during the *lucrative* boom in Japanese tourism) and mass migration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ShawnLH (4,600 comments) says:

    “Does this mean people have no right to express a preference for the status quo as per national identity? ”

    Who’s version? Maori? Dutch? English? Irish? Ulster Irish. Catholic Irish. Kiwi-Native Americans?

    “National identity is a bit like being in a movie: your enjoying John Wayne but all of a sudden someone changes it and your watching Bruce Lee.”

    Except the idea that all Kiwis were all watching one movie is untrue.

    There is no mass immigration to NZ, it is regulated and restricted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    adze (1,855 comments) says:
    July 22nd, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    hj would you object if the immigrants were all anglo-saxon and likely to vote NZ First?
    …………..
    at the level of the ordinary person immigration is seen as exchange (they come here; we go there). What do we get when a lot of Chinese move here (apart from a diversity sandwich)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    The Chief at the Treaty signing was prescient when he observed “The European rat has displaced the Polynesian rat”. Fortunate for us that Hobson lectured them on diversity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ShawnLH (4,600 comments) says:

    ” What do we get when a lot of Chinese move here (apart from a diversity sandwich)?”

    People who like to work, start businesses, and are generally entrepreneurial, not to mention that the average Asian is a better and more productive worker than the average white Kiwi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    “Does this mean people have no right to express a preference for the status quo as per national identity? ”

    Who’s version? Maori? Dutch? English? Irish? Ulster Irish. Catholic Irish. Kiwi-Native Americans?
    ………
    That is an idea used to belittle the notion of Pakeha ethnicity

    Ethnicity, sociologically understood, speaks to shared memory and history, commonality of customs, language, religion
    and world view (Smith 1987). Yet those labelled Pākehā have Scots, Irish, English,
    Welsh, Croatian, Dutch and other ancestry, and all of the cultural and historical
    differences that this entails. As arguably the foremost theorist of Pākehā ethnicity
    has said of his own family: ‘We were New Zealanders, but Irish New Zealanders.
    Although statistics may have lumped us among the almost ninety percent of the
    population descended from the European migration, we did not feel like members of
    a majority’ (King (1985:29). Those so lumped now occupy the same terrain and they
    have the same skin colour. But beyond phenotype and physical location, what do
    they share? David Pearson (1989) claims that Pākehā fall short of an actual ethnic
    group, occupying the more nebulous position of ethnic category. James Urry
    (1990:20-21) adds that even then ‘it is an empty category as it does not represent
    an identity but merely means non-Māori’. And what sort of ethnic identity assumes
    the shadow of the subject, and takes on the position of the Other (Bell 1996:154)?
    Why do Pākehā take someone else’s name as their own?

    Last line

    What does settler indigeniety mask? Put simply, [white] privilege.

    http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers07/papers/29.pdf

    I think it is splitting hairs to say there is no such thing as a Pakeha ethnic group. As has been pointed out “when did Maori cease being Polynesians and become Maori? ”
    Michael King argued otherwise:

    In the new edition of Being Pakeha, I go on to say that, as another indication of how far Pakeha culture has become indigenous, it is only right to see the macrocarpa and the wooden church as being as much emblematic of the New Zealand landscape and human occupation of it, as the meeting house and the cabbage tree.

    http://www.sof.org.nz/origins.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    There is no mass immigration to NZ, it is regulated and restricted.
    ………….
    Yeah right:

    “The big adverse gap in productivity between New Zealand and other countries opened up from the 1970s to the early 1990s. The policy choice that increased immigration – given the number of employers increasingly unable to pay First-World wages to the existing population and all the capital requirements that increasing populations involve – looks likely to have worked almost directly against the adjustment New Zealand needed to make and it might have been better off with a lower rate of net immigration. This adjustment would have involved a lower real interest rate (and cost of capital) and a lower real exchange rate, meaning a more favourable environment for raising the low level of productive capital per worker and labour productivity. The low level of capital per worker is a striking symptom of New Zealand’s economic challenge.

    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingsworkinggroup/pdfs/swg-report-jan11.pdf

    It doesn’t sound to me like all of a sudden we can’t find skilled workers: it was a policy choice to increase and diversify the population.

    ………
    [in the context of a swap (they come here; we go there)]
    ” What do we get when a lot of Chinese move here (apart from a diversity sandwich)?”

    People who like to work, start businesses, and are generally entrepreneurial, not to mention that the average Asian is a better and more productive worker than the average white Kiwi.
    ………….

    We see that in real estate don’t we?

    The Australian Productivity Council said that there was little discernible benefit to Australian’s from immigration; it had all been captured by the migrants. So what if people from a different country work harder than the locals when they compete with locals? Arguments as to the benefits of immigration are overstated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.