Nett migration – still coming in fast and not going out.

42 comments on “Nett migration – still coming in fast and not going out. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. savenz 1

   23 November 2017 at 10:00 am

   Large inward migration is important to keep neoliberalism going. How else can you increase profits and decrease wages and conditions? You need new desperate workers to work below living wages and at the same time make it hard for people to access social welfare systems. It also helps to manipulate social welfare statistics so that the ruse is not noticeable or people will ask ‘ why are we importing in so many people when we have so many un and under employed people already here?’

   At the same time to stop a massive recession forming from the lack of money circulating this is remedied by rising house prices due to massive increased demand from inward migration fuelled by removing immigration criteria like language tests, so people who can’t speak English can make a living by investing in property. A handy 0% tax haven to hide money also helps non residents.

   All the new people and tourists need somewhere to live and stay – hooray! Demand for housing is soaring, now ask the government for more money to help the poor developers build more, get rid of regulations like zoning and reduce community involvement!

   Local people can sell or borrow on their house and this makes up for the lack of wages.

   Unfortunately when this comes to an end, the emperors new clothes are revealed, the economic boom was built on nothing but a Ponzi scheme. Stable high paid jobs were never created, massive government debt from infrastructure and tax cuts can cripple it’s future and the existing country is left with profit going offshore higher than exports. A massive social welfare burden has been created, as NZ is such a lovely country to retire and bring up children, with free super, schools and health care.

   NZ like other neoliberal countries (like Britain), have locals not being able to afford to live in their own cities on average wages and generous government subsidies are needed to survive, and even then the expenses of living taking up more than their entire wages.

   A great opportunity then (either in recession or in a boom) for those who can work offshore, pay taxes god know where but not in NZ, and then buy up NZ cheaply.

   Meanwhile the average Joe voter, hears taxes need to go up to cover all the screw ups, notices that the services are getting worse, wages are going down and starts voting for National’s tax cuts and believing their lies.

   The media already owned by offshore 1% er’s help circulate the propoganda.

   Win , Win for the right!
   • garibaldi 1.1

     23 November 2017 at 11:15 am

     Your analysis is correct savenz, but we need to address that ,quite frankly, horrific first graph given by lprent, without collapse (which would then be blamed on Labour of course).
2. Michelle 2

   23 November 2017 at 10:05 am

   Those figures show the gnats have been lying all this time saying more kiwis are coming home bloody bullshitters when in fact that is not true and has never been the case -1400 kiwis leaving is not kiwis coming home it is less leaving than previously. I have been waiting for the true stats and facts to come out. No wonder our infrastructure is under huge pressure and our rates keep going up and up as has many other costs. And all so those liars can pretend we are doing better than we really are.
3. greywarshark 3

   23 November 2017 at 10:29 am

   I can’t see why rates should go up because valuations have gone up. There is a set amount of work and services to be paid for and it is the extra infrastructure that new buildings require, that also has to be paid for. Presumably the developers need to put in a hefty part of this and add it to the cost of their properties, with the ordinary ratepayer picking up a portion as a cost of city growth.

   This is a separate matter to valuations going up. There may have to be a levelling out process, something like what used to happen with School Cert marks. Settled suburbs can need renewal of infrastructure and special rating areas carrying a big proportion of their own costs would see them paying a percentage for this purpose in a User Pays approach.

   This item discusses rates and property in Auckland.
   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/344448/how-can-rates-go-up-in-a-market-slowdown
   Your rates are a tiny slice of the $1.7 billion earmarked by the council in its last budget as the take from more than half a million urban and rural residential and commercial properties, plus farms and islands. It consists of four parts: a fixed charge, a transport levy, targeted rates, and general rates.

   We’re talking the general rate, which is calculated based on locked-in sale price estimates, what it’s used for, and where it is….

   November’s QV report says there has been a slowdown in the “frenzy” of investors and a reduction in sales to investors from a peak in 2014.
   It may be that the market returns to a “normal” level of activity (not necessarily “normal” prices, just activity). Prices in some developments in Flat Bush – where the valuation is up 54 percent – have dropped by $100,000 in a year, QV says. Investors have dropped off too and there’s been an increase in first time buyers, the report says.
   • tracey 3.1

     23 November 2017 at 12:17 pm

     Som any right wing and property owner idiots out there grey. rates go up if and when a Council needs more money to pay for current and future infrastructure, not cos a house went up in value. Spinoffs article highlighted this home owner/invester class idiocy very well I thought.
     • greywarshark 3.1.1

       23 November 2017 at 1:55 pm

       I actually covered that tracey in my ponderings. Don’t a large part of the amenities needed especially for greenfields development, have to paid by the developers and passed onto the buyers?

       I don’t know if Councils are really up with the problem about who pays and how to get best benefit. Sth Auckland there was a new retirement, hospital site developing and the Council let them put in their own piping along the road, but it is only big enough for their own complex. Seems to me that any digging and installation should ensure that there is piping there for the further sites being developed in the vicinity. Council to pay for piping and utilise the excavation by the rest home to get ahead of the game instead of having to start again.

       Another thing they did is to put short bits of concrete path in here and there possibly over entrances for the future alignment yet they jut out onto what has been a rural road, are a road hazzard, and narrow the driving lanes at the same time as traffic increases.
       • lprent 3.1.1.1

         23 November 2017 at 3:26 pm

         The developers make contributions to, but don’t pay for more than small percentage of greenfield infrastructure. They may pay something towards the roads and infrastructure in a development, but not the roads and infrastructure that connects it to the rest of the city.
       • savenz 3.1.1.2

         23 November 2017 at 3:51 pm

         In some cases the councils ‘waive’ the development fees. That’s for big developers. In some cases like Westgate mall they give millions in corporate welfare to them. It’s public money and Crazy and it doesn’t work at all.

         We are in cockoo land where user pays now means normal people pay hefty fees for everything at the council and the wealthier pay less or nothing or even are paid to do what they want and get to keep all the profits.
         • greywarshark 3.1.1.2.1

           24 November 2017 at 8:50 am

           But they are ‘wealth creators’ right. At the same time we note that retail spending is a major sector of business, so actually the people are wealth creators. So the owners and builders of malls are given money or advantages, or can withhold money to advantage, to build palaces so we wealth creators can go in and fertilise their golden fields!
4. Bill 4

   23 November 2017 at 11:11 am

   There was one of those “see your memories” posts came through on my facebook feed the other day by Bryan Bruce. (Nov 2015)

   Hope this links.

   Quoting from a Salvation Army report (2007)

   “The evidence of housing need is compelling and the inaction of the past is damming”.

   He goes on to mention why he’ll be joining the Hikoi for Homes that Saturday. But the kicker for me is the Tom Scott cartoon at the foot of the post. (1998)

   Guy with HNZ briefcase – “You must remember, some people choose to live in these overcrowded conditions.

   Reporter – “What about the stress and sickness that results?”

   Guy with HNZ briefcase – “They choose that as well”

   The neglect of housing and associated infrastructure extends way beyond the last National government and is not (as said on numerous occasions) anything to do with immigrants suddenly (as commonly implied) putting unbearable pressures on NZ’s infrastructure.

   Regardless of what anyone might think about current immigration flows, the actual cause of NZs infrastructure woes resides elsewhere and across political party divides.
   • weka 4.1

     23 November 2017 at 11:47 am

     Or it could be from multiple factors including how the govt manages immigration policy.
     • Bill 4.1.1

       23 November 2017 at 12:04 pm

       The over-riding factor is one of simple neglect occasioned by (I believe) adherence to a particularly stupid economic ideology. (And it seems that no politician is going to front up on that)

       Now the consequences are biting our collective arses.

       There was a housing and infrastructure problem back in ’98 when immigration movements wee not as they are today, that was allowed to roll on and develop for two decades.

       Is immigration exacerbating things? Well sure. Extra numbers of people needing to utilise inadequate and/or broken infrastructure doesn’t work out so well.

       Will slashing and burning immigration flows in and of itself be a panacea? Well, it would be if it was the cause of the problem.

       And then there’s the related question of, if infrastructure deficits are going to be rectified, then where’s all the damned labour going to be coming from in the short term?
       • Molly 4.1.1.1

         23 November 2017 at 12:29 pm

         The immigration discussion is necessary regarding housing Bill.

         For example, the use of financial investor category for residency, without specifying the terms of investment – has likely contributed to the high inflationary pressures on housing. It would be good to know one way or the other, but that data does not seem to have been collected. If anyone knows, that would be a good discussion.

         But a broader discussion is required regarding immigration in terms of protection for those coming into the country as well.

         The inadequate protections and monitoring of student visas has given private training establishments access to overseas customers who have little recourse to justice after receiving poor quality provision of courses. The other use of student visas as a frogleap to residency was not considered enough to provide a robust framework so the consequences could be measured.

         Not to mention the egregious use of the temporary work visas, that both treat the overseas worker with disdain, and consequently reduce employer responsibility and accountability to the NZ workforce.

         If we can’t even mention the considerations and impacts of immigration on issues without being berated for xenophobia or racism, solutions that benefit current and future NZers will never be presented.
         • Bill 4.1.1.1.1

           23 November 2017 at 5:53 pm

           Why monitor student visas as opposed to the courses?

           How many international students actually go on the apply for and gain residency? (I asked this question previously, and no answer came back)

           If employers have a reduced sense of responsibility and/or accountability, then shouldn’t we be looking at the employment legislation as opposed to temporary work visas?

           And if international students are stripped out from immigration (they are not immigrants), then how do the numbers stack up? Even the UK Tory government recently got slammed by its own backbenchers for running bullshit lines on immigration that relied on counting students as immigrants.
           • Molly 4.1.1.1.1.1

             23 November 2017 at 9:19 pm

             I would think you would monitor student visas that become immigration applicants, rather than just student visas. (Although, somewhere we should be doing both). So that you could either make sure the system is robust, and easily understood by applicants and immigration. At present the system seems undefined, and students can be taken advantage of, first by fraudulent PTEs and then by expensive immigration consultants.

             Employment legislation definitely is a priority. That is the point. We are not monitoring any of these big issues in any meaningful way, that would allow us to finetune processes for all.

             Immigration issues – including societal pressures resulting from temporary immigration for studying or work – needs to be frankly discussed and made transparent so that people aren’t taken advantage of, including the students and workers coming to NZ.

             The impact on housing needs to be addressed, alongside educational delivery and work conditions, for both current NZers and future ones. Unfortunately, no one seems to be gathering quantitative or qualitative data at present.
5. Michelle 5

   23 November 2017 at 11:27 am

   can you explain the lies Bill how the gnats told us the increase in population is due to more Kiwis returning not new immigrants coming here
6. DH 6

   23 November 2017 at 11:31 am

   A good summary, thanks lprent.

   If a Government has core roles the provision of infrastructure to support a growing population would have to be one of them. National’s obsession with roads really clashes with their ignoring everything else.
7. David Mac 7

   23 November 2017 at 11:51 am

   Infrastructure is a grudge purchase. 10 acres of services and roading in the back of Ranui costs millions for zero return for years. Governments are reluctant to spend billions on monuments to bury. ‘Much better to be snipping the opening ribbon at a new aquatic centre, bugger the drains.

   The time scales drag on ad infinitum. Plans for a development passed between bureaucrat’s desks for years and every desk clipping the ticket, long before a digger digs a trench. The risk financiers carry increases as the months grind by and lending rates increase accordingly. I think Twyford has rightfully identified it as a bottleneck and has indicated manipulation may be called for.

   I was surprised to see that NZ citizens coming and NZers going is about the same. I think I’ve been manipulated into thinking ‘ Kiwis are flooding back home mate.’
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     23 November 2017 at 12:16 pm

     I was surprised to see that NZ citizens coming and NZers going is about the same. I think I’ve been manipulated into thinking ‘ Kiwis are flooding back home mate.’

     In the last ten years movement of Kiwis has generally been net leaving.

     So it’s not a complete lie to say that there are more returning Kiwis now than before, boosting immigration numbers. But it certainly isn’t the whole truth either.
   • OnceWasTim 7.2

     23 November 2017 at 12:31 pm

     “I’ve been manipulated into thinking ‘ Kiwis are flooding back home mate.”
     That was the gNat’s intent.
     It’s good to see proof that their (Steven $11b Choice in particular, aided and abetted by his MoBIE vanity projek) bullshit has been exposed.
     That’s not to say the flood back won’t happen now that offshore Kiwis are beginning to realise we have a coalition government that’s a little more progressive than that of the past decade.
     • Baba Yaga 7.2.1

       23 November 2017 at 3:12 pm

       Kiwi’s have never been ‘flooding back home’ (that was over-egged like so many other things), however isn’t it correct that the outflow did slow dramatically in recent years?
       • lprent 7.2.1.1

         23 November 2017 at 3:29 pm

         That would be an accurate statement. It is approaching zero from underneath.

         It is still a nett loss each year. This is the relevant graph from the post.

         
         • Baba Yaga 7.2.1.1.1

           23 November 2017 at 4:07 pm

           Thanks. The fluctuation year to year is actually quite surprising.
8. Colonial Viper 8

   23 November 2017 at 12:13 pm

   I hope someone built an additional 20,000 to 30,000 houses last year to house all these extra people.

   But probably not.
   • tracey 8.1

     23 November 2017 at 12:18 pm

     😉
   • David Mac 8.2

     23 November 2017 at 12:33 pm

     Barely a challenge, Bangladesh have just had 600,000 rock up and pitch tents. Glastonbury with more mud and fewer bands.

     I think Twyford’s suggestion that the Government could buy social housing off the plan was interesting. Done right I think it has the potential to create a win/win.

     The lefty in Twyford can insist ‘Sorry Developer, 10% of the dwellings are for Housing NZ.’ Usually, the developer pushback would be immense. Their easy money is through installing $300 euro design brushed titanium knob-sets in doors, not the robust simple ones Housing NZ will spec.

     To sweeten the pot for developers. Buying off the plan, provides security for the financiers, relieves pressure on lending rates and could provide financing for that prolonged drawn out period when lots of money gets spent and nothing gets sold.
     • Graeme 8.2.1

       23 November 2017 at 1:07 pm

       Pretty much how the State Advances thing worked in 70’s. Developers like Neil, Universal and Keith Hay knew that they would have a ready supply of virtually pre-financed buyers at a basic price point if they developed the sections. Now with commercial banks financing the show, the price has to get up around a million before it all “works”. There was a similar dual market in 70’s too, where there was a big gap between State Advances places and those that had to be financed by a bank.
       • David Mac 8.2.1.1

         23 November 2017 at 1:15 pm

         Yep, we’d be foolish not to study the lessons history has for us. What are your thoughts about how that all turned out. My folks got a similar boost into their first home in 1959. My read is that it all turned out pretty good.
         • Graeme 8.2.1.1.1

           23 November 2017 at 2:10 pm

           I saw a lot of families move out of pretty grotty places into a brand new, but really basic, home. And it happened really fast, Neil’s could get a basic house from sale contract to completed in a matter of weeks, they were a well oiled machine. I was with them in late 70’s, that was towards the end of it and my impression was that they were running out of eligible customers. Massive interest rates killed it in the end. We were into the Muldoon years then.

           They made a good profit on it I think, but the SA places were only done on the really easily developed sites in south and west Auckland. And everything was done to the lowest possible cost, still good engineering standard, but nothing flashy. We had a lot more design latitude in industrial or premium residential subdivisions.

           I thought Auckland was spread-out then, but really we were just filling in the bits between the old villages, there was a lot of inter-urban land banking then too.

           I have a memory of the price hike / supply crunch in early 70’s (I was still at school then) being very similar sounding to what’s happening now. And there was an immigration component to it then, but from UK and Europe. I was the only person born to NZ born parents of the 4 or 5 in the drawing office, and for a short while the only one born in NZ.
       • savenz 8.2.1.2

         23 November 2017 at 3:45 pm

         Yep banks have been an issue. At the end of the day they want risk free profit. All the so called ‘cooling’ measures by banks have disadvantaged first home buyers by wanting more of a deposit or equity.

         Meanwhile someone from China, Singapore, UK or wherever can just buy something here, without even needing to be resident in cash or have a mortgage of 1% against the locals whose income is assessed against borrowing at about 8% in case interest rates go up. Then the low wages and lack of job security start actively going against local people for lending.

         Meanwhile for offshore investors property can be classed as an ‘investment’ to get citizenship here.
     • savenz 8.2.2

       23 November 2017 at 3:58 pm

       Totally against corporate welfare to developers that is where the $600k comes in as affordable because of all the profit everyone makes.

       Go back to state houses, on state land and built by the state with their own trained labour. Use land corp pines for the wood.

       The prisoners can build housing it’s already happening. It’s not that hard to train people in carpentry and tiling. Seriously!

       Then it will go back to be affordable and costing $100k for a small 3 bedroom house to be built.

       The state might even make a profit.
       • savenz 8.2.2.1

         23 November 2017 at 4:14 pm

         Oh and it will create local jobs and skills….
   • savenz 8.3

     23 November 2017 at 12:49 pm

     If they built them CV, my guess is that they were priced over 1 million. Gulp.

     I can tell you 3 years ago it was still possible to get a freehold studio apartment for $160k or a family 3 bedroom home for $350k in Auckland. I even found a 2 bedroom with garage for $220k, 40 mins from Auckland centre. (I was looking for a first home family member). Now it would be impossible. Even Labour has conceded it’s costing $600,000 for affordable housing.

     Also be aware with the residents and citizens coming and going, many people became NZ citizens in the last few years. It could be NZ born and raised coming back to NZ (having been kicked out of EU, OZ etc) and the newly minted Kiwi citizens of just a year or so, leaving. So National’s legacy is completely masked.

     That is also why apparently only 3% of home and land sales are to foreigners.

     The National party left little and flawed statistics for a reason.
     • tracey 8.3.1

       23 November 2017 at 1:24 pm

       Land prices are the problem… crazy crazy land prices.

       Prefabricated homes are gaining traction in Europe and UK, and let’s lower the floor space and give an outside space.
       • David Mac 8.3.1.1

         23 November 2017 at 1:46 pm

         Yes, land ready to build on prices.

         Around me, if I string-lined up 1000 sqm sections out of a 10 acre paddock with a bush track through it, I could charge $5000 a section and double my money.

         It’s not land prices so much as getting from being a paddock to a building site that adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of building a house and does very little towards actually creating a home.

         just a hint from the government that my 10 acres might be rezoned and overnight… “Sorry, $5000 is out of the question, I need $10k as of yesterday and the council rates have doubled.”

         It’s not how we should be doing things. it’s money for nothing.
       • DH 8.3.1.2

         23 November 2017 at 2:03 pm

         “Land prices are the problem… ”

         Exactly tracey, it’s been reported some of these recent revaluations have held land at 90% of the capital value.

         The thing about land from the economic perspective is that bare land has no cost. It only has a price and the price is a measure of the demand for it. Orthodox economics has been screaming that population growth was driving the demand for housing and National played the three monkeys for nine years.
         • lprent 8.3.1.2.1

           23 November 2017 at 3:36 pm

           With my apartment rateable value referenced above, the land value stayed at $115k between 2014 and 2017. The value of the my bit of the building went from $115k to $335k

           I am still trying to figure this one out.
       • savenz 8.3.1.3

         23 November 2017 at 3:36 pm

         Going on about Land prices is a right wing trick to put people off the scent. As mentioned there was the same land, greedy investors, zoning, tax regime, what have you, 3 years ago in Auckland and there was still affordable housing to be had.

         Now there is not. What happened in the last few years that was different?

         Changes in zoning actually put up the land prices for a start. As soon as you can build a lot of houses then land prices rocket. That is why the National party always sites land prices and zoning as the reason there is a housing crisis. The sad thing is that a lot of the lefties have fallen for it.

         Then there has been massive immigration and offshore investment. The 0% tax havens, more internet advertising offshore in Singapore and China. The changes to gifting which make it easier to launder and hide money. etc etc
         • savenz 8.3.1.3.1

           23 November 2017 at 6:18 pm

           The right winger site, trickle down as why the ‘freeing up land’ will work. The idea seems to be that you remove zoning regulation, then more houses are built, and then eventually you have more house and then eventually the houses become cheaper if there becomes a glut.

           Sadly like Rogernomics it does not work in real life.

           In real life under neoliberalism this is what happens, right wingers free up land for new zoning, the land sky rockets in prices and landowners get rich, then they sell it off to developers who want to make a profit and then the developers put on houses or do the resource consenting for houses and make as much profit as possible and then asks the councils, tax payers or what have you for free money, free consents, free infrastructure, free everything. But it’s not free, the rate payers and tax payers have to pay for it all.

           At the same time ordinary people’s rates go up, taxes are spent on corporate welfare for the developers and houses start costing $600k a pop and normal people can’t afford to buy them.

           Just like the trickle down from Rogernomics (note 30 years ago) there will be no trickle down from housing and zoning changes, it will be the same as Rogernomics.

           In Rogernomics a small percentage of people got enormously rich but most people’s wages have not kept pace to pay for the profits and quite a few people don’t have a job at all.

           The Rogernomics of Housing will be the same, (which Labour sadly seem quite interested in) a small percentage will get enormously rich out of housing, most people will have to pay more for housing and many people will end up homeless out of it and the government via the taxpayers will be paying enormous sums to developers to try to remedy it all.
   • OnceWasTim 8.4

     23 November 2017 at 12:49 pm

     Well no they didn’t @CV, because some sage (I think from HCNZ referenced somewhere on another thread or TDB – oh – actually it’s @Bill above) reckons some of ‘them people’ don’t mind living on top of each other.
     Some of ‘them people’, such as the Fijian seasonal worker, or the Indian commerce student attending some shitty PTE*, don’t mind double bunking, or living in some shit hole in the BoP with rats the size of cats scurrying about; or indeed the Filipino nice and compliant dairy worker – blessed with the chance of employment, or the construction worker – busy in Jerry’s Christ’s Church)

     *bear in mind all has apparently been resolved, and there are now NO shitty PTEs.
     The last of the shitty ones has been absorbed into the Aspire2 Group.
     I’m not sure about the exploitative immigration consultants that went hand-in-hand with them have been ‘resolved’ yet (going forward)
9. Brian 9

   23 November 2017 at 5:36 pm

   How can we find out the figure of outflow who are relatively new New Zealanders (in other words, those that have used New Zealand as a back door into Australia)?
   • savenz 9.1

     23 November 2017 at 6:26 pm

     Judging by the amount of retirement villages popping up, my guess is that all these people who don’t work in NZ, but are residents and citizens are planning to come back and retire here. And some answers are needed because we were all told we needed immigration to pay for super for locals. Somehow it seems to be ending up, locals are paying for themselves and also to pay for people who may have only lived in NZ for a few years….

     In Peter Thiel’s case only 11 days.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS