Have you ever been to Europe? Paris isn't in the south of France and Berlin isn't down south of Germany. Many warmer cities in Russia than Moscow. Oh and New York is still the biggest city in the US. What is the stupid fascination with living somewhere stinking hot all the time that you seem to have? You're welcome to it. :nuts:

I absolutely love four very distinct seasons - I think that's what makes places like you have mentioned so interesting.

My best mate lives in Perth, he and his partner love it, but they do miss the gardens and variety of plant life that the cooler climates offer. I personally dislike the heat, give me northern Europe any day.

Perth is one city I've never been to. I'd love to see it :)

My guess is that he's around 16 Dave. He sure sounds it.

If he is paulsy, someone needs to teach him some social and forum skills. There are clear rules set out by the SSC gods on posting and behaviour expected of everyone, especially new members - let the reader take note.

Re: weather. I do miss my ave maximum temps being 23/24 in winter to 40+ in summer, as you never had to worry about a jumper or jeans, maybe for winter evenings. But in chch it's beautiful having four seasons, I believe the city, although beautiful all seasons, is at its best in Autumn!

Yeah I guess its hard for some of the provincial types to understand the big picture. Maybe we should be easer on them.



Newsflash: Tauranga is provincial.

Newsflash: Tauranga is provincial.

Thats the bit I find funny. Though I do remember one statement suggesting that Wellington was perhaps the fifth most important city in NZ, so Tauranga probably would be ranked number 2 in someone's mind.

I absolutely love four very distinct seasons - I think that's what makes places like you have mentioned so interesting.

My best mate lives in Perth, he and his partner love it, but they do miss the gardens and variety of plant life that the cooler climates offer. I personally dislike the heat, give me northern Europe any day.

Perth is one city I've never been to. I'd love to see it :)

^^
I would suggest the reason for the lack of plant life in Perth. Has little to do with the heat,but more to do with the lack of rain.
The Amazon case in point
Perth is a man made oasis on the coast of the driest state in the driest continent on the planet

^^ yet Perth/WA has the widest array of natural wildflowers in the country ;)

also, South Australia is the driest state buddy, Perth has an annual rainfall higher than Adelaide and even Melbourne.

Have you ever been to Europe? Paris isn't in the south of France and Berlin isn't down south of Germany. Many warmer cities in Russia than Moscow. Oh and New York is still the biggest city in the US. What is the stupid fascination with living somewhere stinking hot all the time that you seem to have? You're welcome to it. :nuts:

Auckland isn't exactly stinking hot all the time.

As for the hypothetical 1.5mil in Christchurch or Wellington... Christchurch would be nice IF it wasn't a sprawling mess, which is quite likely due to its flat terrain. Wellington... i dunno.... never liked the place. Maybe it's the bad weather there.

^^ yet Perth/WA has the widest array of natural wildflowers in the country ;)

also, South Australia is the driest state buddy, Perth has an annual rainfall higher than Adelaide and even Melbourne.
^^
Apologies your right...but you get my point

At the turn of the century André Siegfried forecast that, under the benefice of the mild climate and easy life of the northern parts, there would come the emergence of a “new colonial race, differing from the Australians as from the English, and which perhaps will one day be the New Zealand race”. Everyone would agree that the focus of this development now lies in the Auckland region where all the forces are concentrated which are breaking with the old traditions and promoting new ones. In the coming decades the region will be the principal setting for the greatest period of urbanisation, industrialisation, and miscegenation as yet experienced in the short history of the Dominion
^^
Gee, how old is that quote...

That article from 1966 makes me wonder, how different New Zealand could have been if it was a city other than Auckland that really pulled away from the rest.
Imagine Christchurch, Wellington, or Tauranga for example being the largest....

^^

What I find extrordinary. Is the fact that quote was made over 110 years ago.
When Auckland was still almost second class to the likes of Christchurch and even Dunedin.

Wellington... i dunno.... never liked the place. Maybe it's the bad weather there.

I'd think the lack of room would be a factor. Hong Kong has islands which can be built on. Wellington, from memory, has few or no suitable outlying islands at all for residential and commercial construction purposes. Weather has nothing to do with it, otherwise places like Tauranga, Christchurch and to give it a stretch, Nelson would be much bigger.

Auckland isn't exactly stinking hot all the time.



Sorry I was talking about Perth. I though it was obvious but I can see now how it could have been misunderstood.

Newsflash: Tauranga is provincial.


Putting aside the Abolition of Provinces Act 1876, Auckland was also a Provence once. I find it quite amusing how people use it as an almost derogatory term these days!

Putting aside the Abolition of Provinces Act 1876, Auckland was also a Provence once. I find it quite amusing how people use it as an almost derogatory term these days!

Yeah provincial is a rather meaningless term. As you say, if there were still provinces, anywhere in the country would be provincial.

Hello! I put this new table. The word to you...

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/sta.jpg

^^
Do you have a link. I would be interested in more information on this topic.

So, are there any exact numbers as of yet to what the total population is in New Zealand now? :) I was thinking that maybe the 5 million mark was reached. :D

^^
Do you have a link. I would be interested in more information on this topic.

Hello! Here you can find some more information. :) http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/NationalEthnicPopulationProjections_HOTP2006-26/Commentary.aspx

So, are there any exact numbers as of yet to what the total population is in New Zealand now? :) I was thinking that maybe the 5 million mark was reached. :D

Current Population estimate from www.stats.govt.nz is:
as at Monday, 25 Apr 2011 at 09:55:36 am = 4,408,776

Therefore the next milestone is the big 4.5 million :)

^^ Ahh, I see. Cool. Yeah, it should not take all that long to reach 4.5 million. :)

Hello! Here you can find some more information. :) http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/NationalEthnicPopulationProjections_HOTP2006-26/Commentary.aspx

Thanks. Very interesting read.

^^ Ahh, I see. Cool. Yeah, it should not take all that long to reach 4.5 million. :)

Maybe 3 more years as growth is slowing down.

More residents leaving Christchurch
The number of people moving away from Christchurch has more than doubled in the wake of the earthquakes that have devastated the city. The latest migration figures from Statistics New Zealand reveal 1,100 residents left the city on a permanent basis, or for more than year, this March. Just 500 left the city on the same basis in March last year. More residents also headed out of the city for short breaks and holidays. Short-term overseas departures numbered 18,700 in March 2011, up from 13,300 in March 2010. The earthquake is also being blamed for a fall in the overall visitor numbers to New Zealand which were down 11%. The late Easter and the timing of the Australian school holidays is also thought to be behind the trend. There were 11,900 fewer visitors from Australia and 6,800 fewer from the United Kingdom in March. Visitor numbers from Japan also fell by 3,700 and there were 3,000 fewer Korean tourists.

Surge in Christchurch residents leaving for Australia
Monthly net permanent migration to New Zealand was negative in March for the first month since November 2008 due to a jump in Christchurch residents leaving the quake-hit city, figures from Statistics New Zealand show. Seasonally adjusted figures showed net 530 people left New Zealand to live permanently overseas as the number of people leaving Christchurch doubled from February to 1100 in March, Statistics New Zealand said. Overall arrivals of permanent migrants had outnumbered departures by the same margin in February. Australia was the most common destination for Christchurch residents, with 600 people leaving the city to go across the Tasman in March, up from 200 in February, Statistics New Zealand said. Meanwhile, unadjusted numbers show a net 3584 people left New Zealand to live permanently in Australia in March, a record high for the month of March since 1981. In March 4365 New Zealand citizens left to live permanently in Australia (141 per day) while 817 returned, giving a net 3548. The 3584 total net migration referred to above includes non-citizens.

The demographic future is uncertain. Conventionally, this uncertainty is conveyed by different scenarios with specific, stated assumptions about the components of population change. Alternative projection scenarios give an indication of possible uncertainty, although the uncertainty is not quantified.
A stochastic or probabilistic approach to projections can potentially help their interpretation by quantifying the inherent uncertainty. However, it is important to note that the measures of uncertainty are themselves uncertain because of subjective decisions that inevitably have to be made about how to estimate such uncertainty.
All these projections were derived 'deterministically'. That is, they are scenario-based projections produced using specific assumptions. These assumptions are not just an extrapolation of historical trends, but are formulated after analysis of short-term and long-term demographic trends, patterns and trends observed in other countries, government policy, and other relevant information.
The main advantage of stochastic population projections is that they provide a means of quantifying the demographic uncertainty, although it is important to note that the estimates of uncertainty will themselves be uncertain. While it is possible to estimate uncertainty based on the historical variability of the demographic parameters, it is more difficult to estimate the uncertainty that arises from the choice of models, or from the choice of time period(s) that affect the model parameters.

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/populationsize.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/bed.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/medianage.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/cx.jpg

Did you enjoy? :)

@IThomas, if you are going to copy and paste verbatim, then at least give the source site some link-love.

@IThomas, if you are going to copy and paste verbatim, then at least give the source site some link-love.

Grenwelly, I'm sorry for this lack. However, the information was taken from the site http://www.stats.govt.nz/ . Again I apologize, my intentions were not bad :ohno:. However I wanted to say that the first three charts have been revised, while the last graph consists of 4 original drawings. I hope you can forgive me. Thanks. :)

Hello! I put this new table. The word to you...

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/sta.jpg

Can you point me to a national percentage breakdown of population by birth/origin and ethnicity? Eg, percentage foreign born, first generation etc Thx

^^ Im sure the figures are out there, tried to find but no luck sorry. Sure, I got it from wiki- but gotta be pretty close all the same. But I reckon if Auckland is 39% foreign born, then the national average must be about 20-25%. Id easily say one in 5 Kiwis were born overseas.

World Cities with Highest % of Foreign Born populations. Biggest nationality group in parenthesis.
1. 82% Dubai (India)
2. 51% Miami (Cuba)
3. 50% Toronto (India)
4. 47% Amsterdam (Surinam)
5. 45% Muscat (India)
6. 39% Vancouver (China)
= 39% Auckland (England)
= 39% Geneva (Portugal)
9. 38% Mecca (Pakistan)
10 37% the Hague (Israel)

^^ There is The Hague in Israel?! Is it Haifa or is it the Dutch city? ;)

(PS: I know this is a typo on your part I'm just pulling your leg).

Stop following me around the forum and hassling me goddamit with you superior arguments!!!!! :bash:

btw what must be the breakdown for Kiwiscraper members? It must be about 50-50.

Stop following me around the forum and hassling me goddamit with you superior arguments!!!!! :bash:

btw what must be the breakdown for Kiwiscraper members? It must be about 50-50.

I'd imagine so. I'm a dirty little 洋鬼子！I think a good number of us are foreigners here.

Yes but as each day passes I feel just that little bit more Kiwi. At least I can 'blend in' well.

So whats the characters? Is it long nose? :lol:

Yes but as each day passes I feel just that little bit more Kiwi. At least I can 'blend in' well.

So whats the characters? Is it long nose? :lol:

I've never quite managed to integrate that well... I don't actually have any Kiwi friends, all my friends are foreigners! :lol:

The characters - 洋鬼子 (yangguizi) mean "foreign devil". It's a bit like the cantonese "gweilo" used to describe white people in China. I'm surprised they don't have "long nose" for us too, though given they all call us big noses!

I don't actually have any Kiwi friends, all my friends are foreigners! :lol:



:wink:

I can relate. While I do have a number of very dear Kiwi born and bred friends, their numbers are far outweighed by the foreign brigade.

So many of us over here taking the jobs they've vacated while they are overseas taking the jobs we vacated.

Such is the way the world works :D. It's funny to see the divide at school, where my mates, the football playing group, are of all different ethnicities, while the rugby playing group are either anglos, maori or islanders.

I was definately one of the football playing kids. Just not a very good one. :ohno: Rugby didnt exist at all in my childhood- even though I was born just down the road from Randwick. Which apparently means something in Australian union circles.

Mate, I was born in Christchurch but couldn't give a flying toss about rugby union. I'm more of an Australian Rules fellow. Go figure!

Mate, I was born in Christchurch but couldn't give a flying toss about rugby union. I'm more of an Australian Rules fellow. Go figure!

that's interesting...I didn't think there was any coverage or interest in the AFL code in NZ.
So.....do you barrack for any particular team in the AFL ? :cheers:

I have family in Vic and have a spent a reasonable amount of time there, so I might be an exception. I support Essendon, like my cousin, and I'm a very passionate supporter who will hopefully relocate to Melbourne for uni, one reason being that I can be closer to the sport. I went to the 2000 and 2001 grand finals as a kid, and can still remember jubilation at the siren (for the 2000 one, that is ;))

The sport has a small following, without being too small. There's a fair amount of Australian expats here, and of course, a lot of Kiwis have had a bit of exposure to the game too, and take an interest in it.

The whole rugby-mad thing is absent in Auckland, where the sports fans resemble that of Sydney and only turn up for a winning team. And even the Blues, when winning, draw bugger all. More Aucklanders seem to watch rugby league, if I were totally honest. Much better sport, mind you. You never hear the GayFL slag-off here like you do in NSW or QLD, or the crap about the shorts. In fact, when I sit down girls I know to watch a game with me they always comment on how much fitter and better looking AFL players are. The great game could one day be viable here. It's a bit like the possibilities of a Western Sydney team 10-15 years ago, who knows?!

Im real meh about AFL but do have a soft spot for the Hawks.

AFL was the best game to play but. Preferred playing it than anything else, just those bloody aboriginal kids ran rings around me.

AFL team from NZ. Couldnt see it happening man. You would be lucky to get 500 at a game. In fact if it kept Eddie McGuire out of NZ Id go hard out against the idea.

Census night 1996: 3,681,546

Census night 2006: 4,027,947

Population Clock right now: 4,411,114.

The characters - 洋鬼子 (yangguizi) mean "foreign devil". It's a bit like the cantonese "gweilo" used to describe white people in China. I'm surprised they don't have "long nose" for us too, though given they all call us big noses!
Where does that leave youtube celebrity/Chinese-American icon KevJumba and his Western-length nose?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/3716453691_e6936c0d91_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/excalipoor/3716453691/)
KevJumba Chatting with Fans (http://www.flickr.com/photos/excalipoor/3716453691/) by excalipoor (http://www.flickr.com/people/excalipoor/), on Flickr


Meeting KevJumba is on my list of things to do before I die.

While I do have a number of very dear Kiwi born and bred friends, their numbers are far outweighed by the foreign brigade.



I think Auckland's quickly becoming the city where you have to play "Spot the Kiwi". Whether it be at school, work or uni, or even on the street.

Can someone with a wikipedia account edit the New Zealand article to have Napier and Hastings as separate places in the 'cities' section? It's really irking me for some reason.

I found them seperately, but got redirected to napier city rovers when I typed in napier city. Both cities are on seperate pages but have the word ,new zealand behind them.

No I meant the New Zealand article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_zealand. It has a section titled 'cities', which is a bit dubious.

It is called list of CITIES, not list of urban areas, is written by someone who lives overseas, and does not reflect what NZers generally refer to as cities.

Yes Richard I see what you mean.
They need to change the title on it to NZ Urban Areas.The article is protected so really only can start a discussion on why it should be edited on the talk page. Sometimes when an article on wiki is corrected, someone else comes along and reverts it back again. So it can be a never ending problem.

I started a discussion...they seem to consider Stats NZ definitions to be the gold standard however. Despite these not being definitions of cities. Oh well.

I think Auckland's quickly becoming the city where you have to play "Spot the Kiwi". Whether it be at school, work or uni, or even on the street.

In Bradford which is a city close to mine it's a case of if you see 2 white people together you say "SNAP".

Bradford's full of Pakistanis isn't it? You get the impression that Yorkshire is when you watch the Pakis play at Headingley though, I suppose :D.

Census preparation underway! :) For more info go here (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/Corporate/Corporate/CorporateCommunications_MRnext-census.aspx)

Bradford's full of Pakistanis isn't it? You get the impression that Yorkshire is when you watch the Pakis play at Headingley though, I suppose :D.

Yes Bradford is full of pakistanis but it's not an accurate reflection on the whole of Yorkshire. I live a 5 minute walk from Headingley stadium and in headingley it's more full of students for the 2 main universities that serve leeds than anything else. Away from the cities Yorkshire is not very diverse population wise.

Yes Bradford is full of pakistanis but it's not an accurate reflection on the whole of Yorkshire. I live a 5 minute walk from Headingley stadium and in headingley it's more full of students for the 2 main universities that serve leeds than anything else. Away from the cities Yorkshire is not very diverse population wise.

^^
We have a lot of Indians in Auckland now
Not many Pakistanis
The Indians we have seem on the whole to be pretty good
Maybe we got the pick of the crop?

^^
We have a lot of Indians in Auckland now
Not many Pakistanis
The Indians we have seem on the whole to be pretty good
Maybe we got the pick of the crop?

I seriously think you did!!! I generaly find indians to be pretty good people. Sadly there is a great feeling of racial tension in the UK and it seems to be getting worse. "Which sucks"

^^
We have a lot of Indians in Auckland now
Not many Pakistanis
The Indians we have seem on the whole to be pretty good
Maybe we got the pick of the crop?

The numbers of Pakistanis are definitely on the increase. At the Boxing Day Twenty20 game last year there was a bay plus filled with Pakistani fans jumping about and having a good time in the ASB Stand.
Did anyone go to the One-Dayer a few years back at Auckland where the ground was packed, with possibly 70-80% of the people there Indians? It was a hell of an experience :). And considering the South Stand was missing.........Looking forward to the next time India come around and hopefully they play a Twenty20 at Eden Park. Will be a hell of an atmosphere and unlucky if they didn't pack the full 45,000 in.....Considering how cricket mad these nations are, it's hard not to relate the immigrant population to the amount that turn up for the cricket :D.

One of the brilliant things about Auckland being a melting pot!

[QUOTE=Shayno;78680790]The numbers of Pakistanis are definitely on the increase. At the Boxing Day Twenty20 game last year there was a bay plus filled with Pakistani fans jumping about and having a good time in the ASB Stand.
^^

I suppose the question is..how do you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian...? .. language?...

They have added another dimension to Auckland in terms of Cuisine and culture
They dont hang out in ghettos
They dont cause trouble
They seem to embrace our outdoor life style and kiwi lifestyle? .. mad on cricket and many blokes/kids seem to wear something with NZ/all blacks or a fern on it.

My only concern out east...is how many Indian kids are into boy racing

My presonal observations anyway!

^^Your observations are correct! It's not so much the Indian kids, but the Fijian-Indian kids. They love their cars.

^^

I suppose the question is..how do you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian...? .. language?...

They have added another dimension to Auckland in terms of Cuisine and culture
They dont hang out in ghettos
They dont cause trouble
They seem to embrace our outdoor life style and kiwi lifestyle? .. mad on cricket and many blokes/kids seem to wear something with NZ/all blacks or a fern on it.

My only concern out east...is how many Indian kids are into boy racing

My presonal observations anyway!

The only way I can really tell is when there's cricket on to be honest. I'm sure there's subtle ones, like the way Pakistanis will typically dress and look like due to the predominance of Islam as the religion.
Brilliant migrants people from the sub-continent are. For many of the reasons you've pointed out. I've never seen an Indian in all blacks gear though, perhaps Japanese people. You do get a fair amount of Indians in the crowd at Warriors games these days too. Don't know if they're just the Fijian Indians or both.....

www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPJun11.aspx

Of interest, Wellington City breaks 200k, Christchurch loses 8900, and I'd also hazard a guess Invercargill has overtaken New Plymouth and Whangarei 'cities proper'

www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPJun11.aspx

Of interest, Wellington City breaks 200k, Christchurch loses 8900, and I'd also hazard a guess Invercargill has overtaken New Plymouth and Whangarei 'cities proper'


That's a good growth rate for Invercargill - it'd be interesting to see exactly what sectors have attracted such rapid growth.


As far as New Plymouth is concerned, I really don't know - most of the growth in Taranaki's population has been centred in New Plymouth - and the current figure of 52,800 on the wikipedia page still doesn't include suburban Bell Block - so without the actual census counts it's hard to say. There will also be the obligatory arguments over the arbitrarily drawn city boundary issues in both camps.

It looks like Nelson has benefited substantially from the Christchurch earthquake population shift; Hopefully for the city, that's a permanent shift and not just a transitional arrangement.

www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPJun11.aspx

Of interest, Wellington City breaks 200k, Christchurch loses 8900, and I'd also hazard a guess Invercargill has overtaken New Plymouth and Whangarei 'cities proper'

Wow the population is still booming in the golden triangle!

but it looks like christchurch is on the decline. I reckon itll continue to decline for quite a few years yet but probably at a slower rate.

Wow the population is still booming in the golden triangle!

but it looks like christchurch is on the decline. I reckon itll continue to decline for quite a few years yet but probably at a slower rate.

Where does it say that?

People are actually starting to come back, slowly. I also know people that know people that are planning to move back for the beginning of 2012 :)

otumoetai, the fastest growing districts are still those of metro Christchurch, if not the city proper.

PS Tauranga is only just pipping Invercargill. :)


That's a good growth rate for Invercargill - it'd be interesting to see exactly what sectors have attracted such rapid growth.


As far as New Plymouth is concerned, I really don't know - most of the growth in Taranaki's population has been centred in New Plymouth - and the current figure of 52,800 on the wikipedia page still doesn't include suburban Bell Block - so without the actual census counts it's hard to say. There will also be the obligatory arguments over the arbitrarily drawn city boundary issues in both camps.

It looks like Nelson has benefited substantially from the Christchurch earthquake population shift; Hopefully for the city, that's a permanent shift and not just a transitional arrangement.

Perhaps not then re New Plymouth if it's not including Bell Block. Stats NZ are pretty bloody inconsistent. Insert Hamilton + towns argument here.

RE Chch, I thought Timaru would've done better...Ashburton has had a lot of growth though. *shrug*

Perhaps not then re New Plymouth if it's not including Bell Block. Stats NZ are pretty bloody inconsistent. Insert Hamilton + towns argument here.

Yup, that's right! It's a veritable minefield.

During the last census, there was a suburb called Struan Park listed in New Plymouth that took in parts of Strandon, East End, and lower Merrilands. No one I talked to had ever even heard of it - there is not street named Straun, not actual park named Straun etc. Bizarre.



RE Chch, I thought Timaru would've done better...Ashburton has had a lot of growth though. *shrug*

This could be more reflective of where Statistics New Zealand think the population has moved to, which could be - and has been in the past - contrary to what has actually happened. I guess we'll see after the March census results are posted!

It looks like Nelson has benefited substantially from the Christchurch earthquake population shift; Hopefully for the city, that's a permanent shift and not just a transitional arrangement.

Nelson had the same growth rate as Christchurch pre-September quake. There's loads of new housing developments going up around the suburbs.

PS Tauranga is only just pipping Invercargill. :)


I don't know where you get your info from, but Tauranga is 120,000 compared to Invercargil at 48,000. POP from June 2010.

^^
I think Richard was saying that Tauranga's growth rate is only just ahead of Invercargill's rate.
Still nice to see that Invercargill is growing and not shrinking in population :)

Yes, growth rate of course.

At 30 September 2011, New Zealand’s estimated resident population reached 4,414,400, which is 0.06 percent of the world’s population, Statistics New Zealand said today. The global population was recently projected by the United Nations (UN) to have passed seven billion. New Zealand’s contribution to the global population is comparable to that of Croatia, Georgia, and Ireland.
New Zealand’s population grew by 33,500 (0.8 percent) during the September 2011 year. "This is the lowest rate of population growth for a September year since 2000," Population Statistics manager Andrea Blackburn said. This growth was due to a natural increase (excess of births over deaths) of 32,800, and a net migration gain of 800.
"Over the last decade New Zealand’s population increased by just over half a million, up from 3,895,400 at 30 September 2001. This is an average annual growth rate of 1.3 percent, which is similar to the global average annual growth rate,” Mrs Blackburn said. The global population increased by around 800 million over the decade.
The world’s population had a median age of 29.2 years (2010 UN estimate), approximately 7.5 years younger than the median age of New Zealand's population – 36.8 years. At 30 September 2011, New Zealand had 97 males to every 100 females. In comparison, the sex ratio of the world population was 102 males to every 100 females (2010 UN estimate).

By www.stats.govt.nz

Nice to see the latest population estimates of the cities, as we wont have a census now till 2013.

Can anyone tell me what the estimated population of the Auckland metro area is at the moment? I heard a figure of approx 1.5 million?

Can anyone tell me what the estimated population of the Auckland metro area is at the moment? I heard a figure of approx 1.5 million?

That's about right, yes

^^
Thanks. Any idea on what the current annual growth rate is for auckland at the moment?

^^
Akld growth rate: higher than Adelaide but less than Perth ;) !

ie: Akld will continue to increase it's population lead over Adelaide but will probably never catch Perth or Brisbane....

The map combines the data of the total population in 4 time intervals: 2025, 2050, 2075, 2100. Each of it is divided into 4 types of fertility: low, costant, medium, high.
For more info and discover other data relating to other nations go to 7 BILLION ACTIONS (http://www.7billionactions.org/data)

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/DATINZ.png

^^
Thanks. Any idea on what the current annual growth rate is for auckland at the moment?

1.6%

Oh good lord, imagine NZ at 9.4 million. How big would Auckland be!

AKL could be 5 million and the rest 4.4 Million spread around the country. Some places will still be empty eg the west coast of S.I.

AKL could be 5 million and the rest 4.4 Million spread around the country. Some places will still be empty eg the west coast of S.I.

Other places will be packed. Imagine places like Wellington or Tauranga.

By 2040 Tauranga will have a population of around 250000 which includes over 40000 in papamoa city. :banana:

The golden triangle sure is THE place to be!

By 2040 Tauranga will have a population of around 250000 which includes over 40000 in papamoa city. :banana:

The golden triangle sure is THE place to be!

:lol:

Right. Please explain, then, why the Nelson-Tasman region has some of the highest growth rates in the country if everyone is going to the so-called "Golden Triangle".

:lol:

Right. Please explain, then, why the Nelson-Tasman region has some of the highest growth rates in the country if everyone is going to the so-called "Golden Triangle".

Stats NZ predicts that to 2031 the medium growth rate of Nelson will be 0.5% pa, Tasman will be 0.6% is pa, Waikato will be 0.7% pa and the Bay of Plenty will be 0.8% pa.

The high, medium and low growth rates for the regions in the golden triangle and Canterbury are all higher than any other region in the country. See the table below showing the projections

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/SubnationalPopulationProjections/HOTP2031/snpp-2006-base-updt-avg-annl-popn-chg.gif?w=280&h=426&as=1

Also you can look at the more detailed numbers here
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationProjections_HOTP2031.aspx

1.6%

Thanks for the info.

:lol:

Right. Please explain, then, why the Nelson-Tasman region has some of the highest growth rates in the country if everyone is going to the so-called "Golden Triangle".

Not long term according to stats nz they arent! There might be a few running away from the chirstchurch quake but theyre not going to be able to stay in nelson. Its nice and pretty, but there arent many opportunities there. The real business opportunities are in auckland, hamilton and tauranga.

Not long term according to stats nz they arent! There might be a few running away from the chirstchurch quake but theyre not going to be able to stay in nelson. Its nice and pretty, but there arent many opportunities there. The real business opportunities are in auckland, hamilton and tauranga.

That may be, but people come to Nelson for the lifestyle. Time and time again I hear people saying how nice and relaxed and easygoing it is here. Something that those three places don't offer.

Lol.
Why do you think people are moving to Tauranga?

I'd much rather live in Tauranga for the lifestyle than in Nelson.

Turanga is close to Auckland.
That will always give it an advantage over Paihia, Gisborne, Nelson etc etc, or any other place that has the 'relaxed, sunny lifestyle'.
People can get in the car and be in the big smoke within two hours.

Lol.
Why do you think people are moving to Tauranga?

To die?

I'd much rather live in Tauranga for the lifestyle than in Nelson.

Yup nelson is a nice place, but its way too isolated but most importantly there’s very little business opportunities there. Tauranga is close to auckland and hamilton and is the hub for new zealands export and import industry (even more if ports of auckland keep screwing things up). Hamilton looks set to become a major inland port and maybe the technology centre if all these plans for new data centres are built.

Auckland is always going to be new zealands main city but you can have lifestyle and a really good job in hamilton and tauranga! :banana:

I have to agree with that.
Nelson really is nice, but so is Tauranga.
Think about it from the position of a person who has never been to either of them.....which place would most people choose? Tauranga or Nelson?
I honestly don't mean to put Nelson down, but I think Tauranga has more to offer.

I honestly don't mean to put Nelson down, but I think Tauranga has more to offer.

Of course it does. Just like ebola has more over cancer in terms of how quickly you die. Tell me, what exactly can you do in Tauranga that makes it so "special"? Hmm?

The statistics released in June showed that Auckland, Tasman and Nelson all grew by 1.6%, which were the fastest growing in the country. And will still continue to grow above the national average (http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/A+Changing+New+Zealand#2). If you want to ignore this and say "it's not possible", then fine. It's what you usually do anyway.

Also, Hamilton being an "inland port"? Good luck getting freight vessels up the Waikato.

Lol Kiwiguy. I wouldn't live in Tauranga or Nelson.
I am not ignoring that Nelson is growing, and I am not saying it isn't attractive or nice.
But I am saying that Tauranga has advantages over Nelson.

- It has (or at least has the perception of) a warmer climate.
- It is close to Auckland.

But I am saying that Tauranga has advantages over Nelson.

- It has (or at least has the perception of) a warmer climate.
- It is close to Auckland.

And Nelson is not close to any other metropolitan area. Right. Also, the first is also wrong. Both have virtually the same climate.

So, anything else you'd like to add?

I'm not sure why you find this so hard to understand.

I am not saying that Tauranga is 'better' than Nelson. I don't give a toss about New Zealands poxy regional rivalries, whether it be city vs country, north vs south, or Auckland/Tauranga/Hamilton vs everyone else.
I am stating two simple facts which I believe give Tauranga an advantage over Nelson when it comes to attracting migrants

North Islanders think of the South Island as cold, so they are more likely to move to 'a quiet place by the sea' in the upper north as opposed to elsewhere.

Tauranga is roughly 2 hours by car from Auckland. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or any other random person like Auckland or not, the fact of the matter is that for many people this proximity is a virtue.

I am stating two simple facts which I believe give Tauranga an advantage over Nelson when it comes to attracting migrants.


Bullshit. Nelson has the third largest percentage of migrants per capita in New Zealand. So clearly, that's false.

Per capita. So that's why more migrants (as an overall number) would choose Tauranga over Nelson. Also, the climate may be similar, but not virtually the same. Would you go to the beach on a sunny day at 22 degrees, or a sunny day at 24?

Also, the climate may be similar, but not virtually the same. Would you go to the beach on a sunny day at 22 degrees, or a sunny day at 24?

It is the same. And I'd go to the beach on any day. But Tauranga is not two degrees warmer overall. It is only one. So it is virtually the same.

And you also forgot one vital point. We've got the sun. They don't.

Of course it does. Just like ebola has more over cancer in terms of how quickly you die. Tell me, what exactly can you do in Tauranga that makes it so "special"? Hmm?

The statistics released in June showed that Auckland, Tasman and Nelson all grew by 1.6%, which were the fastest growing in the country. And will still continue to grow above the national average (http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/A+Changing+New+Zealand#2). If you want to ignore this and say "it's not possible", then fine. It's what you usually do anyway.

Also, Hamilton being an "inland port"? Good luck getting freight vessels up the Waikato.

I love this above comment.
KiwiGuy, your passion for the Nelson area is awesome dude :)
I have only ever been down there once, for the Waitangi Tribunal (foreshore, seabed debate). I must say it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been in New Zealand.
I agree that the upper towns and Cities of the South Island are going through some major growth periods and have been for some time now.

As for what you can you do in Tauranga that makes it so special, well nothing really. Nothing that you probably cant do somewhere else in NZ.
I grew up in Tauranga and found that if you wanted to do anything as a kid or teen, your options were; beach, do laps (walking) down town, play touch at one of the parks or walk around or up the mount.
So nothing exciting or unique to the area as such.
I just think the main reason people move to Tauranga is due to it having a great climate like the Nelson area.

One last thing dude and Im sorry but it made me laugh in a good way, an inland port at Hamilton would not be a shipping port, more of a freight holding, transfer and distribution centre primarily based moved via rail.

Keep up your passion though KiwiGuy, its good to hear.
As for you Otumoetai, Self-effacement is a virtue, Tauranga is a great place but not so great everyone on here needs to be bashed with it.

:)I love this above comment.
KiwiGuy, your passion for the Nelson area is awesome dude :)
I have only ever been down there once, for the Waitangi Tribunal (foreshore, seabed debate). I must say it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been in New Zealand.
I agree that the upper towns and Cities of the South Island are going through some major growth periods and have been for some time now.

As for what you can you do in Tauranga that makes it so special, well nothing really. Nothing that you probably cant do somewhere else in NZ.
I grew up in Tauranga and found that if you wanted to do anything as a kid or teen, your options were; beach, do laps (walking) down town, play touch at one of the parks or walk around or up the mount.
So nothing exciting or unique to the area as such.
I just think the main reason people move to Tauranga is due to it having a great climate like the Nelson area.

One last thing dude and Im sorry but it made me laugh in a good way, an inland port at Hamilton would not be a shipping port, more of a freight holding, transfer and distribution centre primarily based moved via rail.

Keep up your passion though KiwiGuy, its good to hear.
As for you Otumoetai, Self-effacement is a virtue, Tauranga is a great place but not so great everyone on here needs to be bashed with it.

Dude you should be a diplomat:)

It is the same. And I'd go to the beach on any day. But Tauranga is not two degrees warmer overall. It is only one. So it is virtually the same.

And you also forgot one vital point. We've got the sun. They don't.

Tauranga is 145 hours off Nelson. So w/e.

Having been to neither, Nelson looks more attractive than Tauranga to me. Lots more scenery, national parks on doorstep, thriving arts and music scene. Tauranga has more employment opportunities and is less isolated though I guess?

They are both lovely on a sunny day.
I prefer Nelson's CBD to Tauranga's, but if somebody held a gun to my head and made me choose between the two places at the exclusion of everywhere else in the world, I would choose Tauranga.

#Closer to Auckland
#Brighter future (IMO)

They are both lovely on a sunny day.
I prefer Nelson's CBD to Tauranga's, but if somebody held a gun to my head and made me choose between the two places at the exclusion of everywhere else in the world, I would choose Tauranga.

#Closer to Auckland
#Brighter future (IMO)

^^^^
Id choose Tauranga...only due to the following:
.....Surfing


I love Nelson/ Motueka......Golden Bay, its an awsome area..one can understand Kiwi guys passion

Great people ( in the main) lifestyle/weather:)

IMO Tauranga has a bright future. It has a vital port, good climate, close to major cities, and an excellent growth rate.

It needs to get a university in the city, that will attract younger migrants.

Thats true. I'd like to live there for uni, but Waikato have a very limited range of courses available.

So why should Tauranga get one if there are already two universities in "close" proximity already that provide enough courses?

They should just broaden the range of UoW in Tauranga.

So why should Tauranga get one if there are already two universities in "close" proximity already that provide enough courses?

Because of the massive population and business growth its justified.

Waikato university wont offer a full range for a while in tauranga but its a great start.

Because of the massive population and business growth its justified.

Waikato university wont offer a full range for a while in tauranga but its a great start.

:lol: "Massive population". Out of the three (Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga), Tauranga is, by far, the smallest there. And seeing as there are two universities in Hamilton and Auckland (actually, there may be more in the latter) which are some of the biggest and best in the country. Sure, maybe a couple of campuses catered to whatever it is Tauranga specialises in, but not an entirely separate one itself.

:lol: "Massive population". Out of the three (Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga), Tauranga is, by far, the smallest there. And seeing as there are two universities in Hamilton and Auckland (actually, there may be more in the latter) which are some of the biggest and best in the country. Sure, maybe a couple of campuses catered to whatever it is Tauranga specialises in, but not an entirely separate one itself.

They could shove another Massey campus there. There is already a chain of them in Auckland and Wellington as well as palmy

:lol: "Massive population". Out of the three (Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga), Tauranga is, by far, the smallest there. And seeing as there are two universities in Hamilton and Auckland (actually, there may be more in the latter) which are some of the biggest and best in the country. Sure, maybe a couple of campuses catered to whatever it is Tauranga specialises in, but not an entirely separate one itself.

He was actually talking about the 'Massive population and business growth. And it is massive.

Tauranga has doubled its population in 30 odd years and will carry on growing and will need its own seperate University, compared to the likes of Dunedin which has been stagnant for 40+ years and still around 120,000.

Dunedin is a university town though. That's it's thing. Why it's such a conductive environment to students.

Does NZ need another uni? Is Tauranga actually underserved? I suppose it could go for the education sector, but again, does NZ need another uni town?

They could shove another Massey campus there. There is already a chain of them in Auckland and Wellington as well as palmy

The only reason massey even have a place in wellington is because they bought out the local polytech. Theyve move to auckland because they know thats where the market is for them, just look at how much money theyve thrown at it and the number of courses available there compared to little old palmy.

Dunedin is a university town though. That's it's thing. Why it's such a conductive environment to students.


The only thing that my mates think of dunedin and students is couch burning, car tipping and general rioting. You dont get that in any other uni town.

The only reason massey even have a place in wellington is because they bought out the local polytech. Theyve move to auckland because they know thats where the market is for them, just look at how much money theyve thrown at it and the number of courses available there compared to little old palmy.
Would your qualifications count if you gained them from either the Palmy or Wellington campuses? or wouldn't it because they're outside of the triangle of golden goodness?

Would your qualifications count if you gained them from either the Palmy or Wellington campuses? or wouldn't it because they're outside of the triangle of golden goodness?

If it isn't in the center of the universe, it doesn't count. At least that's what the impression that we get.

The only thing that my mates think of dunedin and students is couch burning, car tipping and general rioting. You dont get that in any other uni town.

Odd really. Considering Otago is the Uni that gained in the rankings when the rest of NZ's Uni's fell it must be doing something right. I was suitably impressed with Dunedin and Otago Uni when I visited and the research being done there, I feel, is very good on the whole.

As for rioting and student activism, perhaps you should look abroad and see that students tend to be the most militant members of society. Parisian students frequently riot and cause mayhem when protesting.

As for rioting and student activism, perhaps you should look abroad and see that students tend to be the most militant members of society. Parisian students frequently riot and cause mayhem when protesting.

Agree. You only have to look at the protests/riots in England and Chile to see that students are a militant force and that rioting is universal anywhere.

All I can say is thank God I'm not militant enough to damage public property.

Odd really. Considering Otago is the Uni that gained in the rankings when the rest of NZ's Uni's fell it must be doing something right. I was suitably impressed with Dunedin and Otago Uni when I visited and the research being done there, I feel, is very good on the whole.

As for rioting and student activism, perhaps you should look abroad and see that students tend to be the most militant members of society. Parisian students frequently riot and cause mayhem when protesting.

Try googling dunedin student riots (http://www.google.co.nz/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=1028&source=hp&q=dunedin+students+riot&pbx=1&oq=dunedin+students+riot&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=683l4053l0l4209l23l17l0l0l0l1l832l7731l4-1.7.4l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b022d9a00a4d3080)

They might have some good rankings overall but theres a few of em that just spoil it for the others. You just dont get this kind of thing at the other unis.

Would your qualifications count if you gained them from either the Palmy or Wellington campuses? or wouldn't it because they're outside of the triangle of golden goodness?

Welly doesnt offer the range of courses palmy does. Before the auckland campus was so big, most of the courses were only offered in palmy. Now a lot arent even offered there anymore, as theyre only offered in auckland. They know where the market is and are catering for it.

Massey is probably the most boring uni

Massey is probably the most boring uni

Really? I want to go to Vic in Wellington for three primary reasons: I'd much rather live in Wellington than anywhere else (despite the terrible weather), it's very close to Nelson which means it will be easier to visit family and a lot of people I know are going there.

Problem is, I can't afford to go. Which means I'll have to make do with NMIT for the time being.

Hmm. Well the Auckland campus is pretty tame anyway

Hmm. Well the Auckland campus is pretty tame anyway

Possibly because it is in Albany with poor transport links (in terms of buses) and very few amenities around it. I have heard that the campus at Palmy is better.

Something that the baggers of Massey seem to forget - they offer the only Veterinary Sciences (http://vet-school.massey.ac.nz/) course in NZ. This alone makes the University disproportionately more important than its size and ranking hint at given the importance of veterinary sciences to the NZ economy.

Yay :) :cheers:

Auckland population to hit 1.5 million mark next week 2:47 PM Thursday Jan 26, 2012

by Greg Bowker - NZ Herald.

Auckland's population will be pushed over 1.5 million next week, Statistics New Zealand says.

And it's likely that will be a literal push, with the 1.5 millionth person likely to be a new baby.

"The 1.5 millionth person could be a migrant coming from overseas or from within New Zealand but it is most likely to be a new baby," population statistics manager Andrea Blackburn said.

"That's because births add more than net migration to Auckland's population growth."

Auckland had dominated the nation's population growth for the past 60 years and was most likely to hit the 1.5 million mark on February 1, Ms Blackburn said.

It had taken 35 years to jump from 500,000 to 1,000,000 but only 16 years to reach 1.5 million - and account for 34 per cent of New Zealand's population.

Auckland boasts the fifth-highest population in New Zealand and Australia, below Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth but above Adelaide.

- APNZ

*Waits for calls to abandon the rest of the country*

Well done AKL....are there any plans to build residential towers within the city to help cater for the population growth or are urban growth areas the focus of future planning ?

I imagine Auckland feels like a much larger city due to it being the economic and cultural heart of New Zealand. Seems to punch well above its weight for a city with only 1.5m.

I imagine Auckland feels like a much larger city due to it being the economic and cultural heart of New Zealand. Seems to punch well above its weight for a city with only 1.5m.

Well, it's different kind of NZ city due to its multi cultural population, majority of international migrants that move to NZ, move to Auckland. Auckland also has a monopoly on head offices of kiwi and international businesses being based there. Many businesses in New Zealand have "drifted north" to Auckland so to speak.

With Auckland being by far the biggest city in NZ there's plenty of internal shit fighting amongst kiwis, most of it friendly banter, some very serious. Examples:

*Some Aucklanders see themselves as superior while the rest of New Zealand is an under developed dump.
*Some Kiwis in other cities/towns, hate anyone from Auckland for being an Aucklander.
*Serious issue: Aucklanders get annoyed because the city has been underfunded for years.
*Serious issue: New Zealanders from other towns/cities get annoyed because of businesses in their area moving to Auckland.

Well done Auckland!

Well, it's different kind of NZ city due to its multi cultural population, majority of international migrants that move to NZ, move to Auckland. Auckland also has a monopoly on head offices of kiwi and international businesses being based there. Many businesses in New Zealand have "drifted north" to Auckland so to speak.

With Auckland being by far the biggest city in NZ there's plenty of internal shit fighting amongst kiwis, most of it friendly banter, some very serious. Examples:

*Some Aucklanders see themselves as superior while the rest of New Zealand is an under developed dump.
*Some Kiwis in other cities/towns, hate anyone from Auckland for being an Aucklander.
*Serious issue: Aucklanders get annoyed because the city has been underfunded for years.
*Serious issue: New Zealanders from other towns/cities get annoyed because of businesses in their area moving to Auckland.

There's the same resentment in every country towards it's respective biggest city. Aussies think Sydneysiders are arrogant, Russians think Moscow gets too much money, Londoners think civilisation ends as soon as you get past the M25 etc. etc.

A lot of my friends that have been to Auckland always comment on how it seems bigger than it actually is.

Well done AKL....are there any plans to build residential towers within the city to help cater for the population growth or are urban growth areas the focus of future planning ?

The Auckland Council wants 75% of population growth over the next 30 years to be within the current urban limit. 25% will be on greenfield sites.

Surprise, surprise. Bill Ralston's latest rant (http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/life/save-our-suburbs/) in the Listener has outed him as a Suburbistani.

In my dotage I’m to be condemned to living in a 17th-floor rabbit hutch. If I wanted to live in Hong Kong, I would have moved there.

We have a right to be concerned about shoeboxes. But places like Vancouver as we all know have managed to get high-density living right, and I doubt Mr Ralston has ever been into a penthouse. And isn't it funny how those whingeing loudest about the RMA will probably invoke it when it suits them?

There's the same resentment in every country towards it's respective biggest city. Aussies think Sydneysiders are arrogant, Russians think Moscow gets too much money, Londoners think civilisation ends as soon as you get past the M25 etc. etc.

A lot of my friends that have been to Auckland always comment on how it seems bigger than it actually is.

I think it does. Having being to cities like Portland and Cincinnati...I think Auckland definitely feels bigger than both those cities.

On the other hand Christchurch has gone down to
367,700. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch or
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/subnational-pop-estimates-tables.aspx
Is expected to loose more people as red zone suburbs are cleared of housing in 2013.

Auckland's population to hit 2 million in less than 20 years?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7150/6777934045_e95df39fc4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyeonauckland/6777934045/)
25 JAN 12 24°C ST HELIERS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyeonauckland/6777934045/) by Urban+Explorer (http://www.flickr.com/people/eyeonauckland/), on Flickr

There are predictions Auckland's population will hit two million in less than 20 years. It comes as Statistics New Zealand announces Auckland's 1.5 millionth person will arrive in the city this week. Massey University sociologist Paul Spooney says Auckland's growth is largely driven by migration with 25,000 to 30,000 people arriving in Auckland every year. He says if Auckland continues to grow at the same rate, he expects the city to reach two million people by 2030. Mr Spooney says Auckland is growing at almost twice the rate of the rest of New Zealand.

**************************************************************

It would seem that we might see those shelved projects start up again - here's hoping: Renters in race for space in inner city (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10782303)

There's the same resentment in every country towards it's respective biggest city. Aussies think Sydneysiders are arrogant, Russians think Moscow gets too much money, Londoners think civilisation ends as soon as you get past the M25 etc. etc.

A lot of my friends that have been to Auckland always comment on how it seems bigger than it actually is.

Yup plenty of haters outside auckland but the truth is that if you want to be really successful business then auckland is where you need to be! Its just jealousy.

Yup plenty of haters outside auckland but the truth is that if you want to be really successful business then auckland is where you need to be! Its just jealousy.

Actually, it's more of you protraying some sort of superiority complex. Auckland I can handle.

Works both ways otumoetaiNZ, we have idiots who hate Auckland for no reason, jealousy etc and folks like you who thinks the rest of the country is insignificant.

Would love for Auckland to get a 200m+ tower, but there's so much red tape here that by the time they are approved we will be celebrating the 22nd century.

Kiwi red tape...sigh, there's just so many layers to cut through. By the time the tape is finally cleared, 1 person will object because that crane could be unsightly then all of a sudden there's 5 more layers.

Would love for Auckland to get a 200m+ tower, but there's so much red tape here that by the time they are approved we will be celebrating the 22nd century.

While it is easy to blame red tape in delaying buildings, the economics of new constructions also have to be practical....

It was not Red Tape that killed off Elliot Tower, it was the GFC,
The building was essentially fully consented and ready to roll at the end of 2008.

It was not Red Tape that killed off Elliot Tower, it was the GFC,
The building was essentially fully consented and ready to roll at the end of 2008.

And SkyCity didn't help if I recall correctly

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/5646924449_56f23135b4_b.jpg

While it is easy to blame red tape in delaying buildings, the economics of new constructions also have to be practical....

It was not Red Tape that killed off Elliot Tower, it was the GFC,
The building was essentially fully consented and ready to roll at the end of 2008.


Agreed it was the GFC that killed this project,but according to my sources the party will be on again once confidence in the market returns(christ knows when).Obviously there is a huge housing shortage in Auckland so I believe there would have been demand for this type of thing.Who agrees that if the Elliot had been built it would have been fully tenanted by now.Sales of the individual apartments in the building would have been another matter.

Agreed it was the GFC that killed this project,but according to my sources the party will be on again once confidence in the market returns(christ knows when).Obviously there is a huge housing shortage in Auckland so I believe there would have been demand for this type of thing.Who agrees that if the Elliot had been built it would have been fully tenanted by now.Sales of the individual apartments in the building would have been another matter.

Yup, our sources say the same and there is rumour that The Elliott could break ground in May - hell I hope that they are true :colgate: ... now for other news:

Auckland welcomes its 1.5 millionth citizen

The Mayor has welcomed the baby chosen as Auckland’s 1.5 millionth citizen this morning at Middlemore Hospital. Ramonah Patience Toomalatai was born a healthy 9 pounds 9 ounces at 4.36am in Middlemore’s Maternity Ward to proud parents Sulia and Tutasi Toomalatai. “Ramonah may have been four days overdue but she was right on time to reach this significant milestone for Auckland,” says Len Brown. The Toomalatai family live in Panmure and Ramonah joins her sister to Janelia (6) and brother Patrick (4). Both her parents are Samoan born; her mother Sulia grew up in Tauranga and her father Tutasi moved to New Zealand eight years ago.

Statistics New Zealand determined that the 1.5 millionth Aucklander would arrive today and would most likely be a baby rather than a migrant due to existing growth patterns. Population growth in Auckland has exceeded that of other New Zealand centres over the last 60 years and reached 1 million in the mid-1990s. Auckland is now home to 34 per cent of New Zealand’s population according to 2011 figures with estimates suggesting Auckland could reach 2 million before 2031. “Our challenge is to ensure that by the time we reach the 2 million mark we can look back and know we made the right decisions, the tough decisions and built an Auckland that Ramonah will be proud of.”

Great news if true.

Once one big tower is built, it could open the door for others.

:) Let it be, Let it be :) ;) ... the Elliott that is :cheers:

Works both ways otumoetaiNZ, we have idiots who hate Auckland for no reason, jealousy etc and folks like you who thinks the rest of the country is insignificant.

When did i say the rest of the country is insignficant? We need people to raise cows and tend crops, but if you want to be involved in business, finance, culture and all that stuff then you need to be in the city and there really is only one real city in nz and thats auckland. Its just being realistic.

When did i say the rest of the country is insignficant? We need people to raise cows and tend crops, but if you want to be involved in business, finance, culture and all that stuff then you need to be in the city and there really is only one real city in nz and thats auckland. Its just being realistic.

That's ridiculous.

:) Let it be, Let it be :) ;) ... the Elliott that is :cheers:

This is from Queen City Law's website regarding Elliot Tower (updated December):

Spearheading the Resource Consent process for the project currently known as the Elliott Tower (Auckland CBD). Resource Consent for this proposed NZ$450M project was finally obtained after a contestable process.Queen City Law was intricately involved in the appointment and co-ordination of the team which comprised New Zealands leading architects (Mollers), planners (Barker & Associates), urban designers (Transurban), construction representatives (Brookfield Multiplex), traffic engineers (Connell Wagner and Traffic Planning Consultants Limited), communications experts (Kordia), RMA Barrister Russell Bartlett and others.

The project represents the largest high rise project ever seen in New Zealand (67 levels representing over 90,000m2 of improvements) and our office is conveniently located next to the development site.

This project is now moving in to the building consent phase and it is currently anticipated that the sales, financing and construction phases will be activated in parallel so that construction may commence in 2013.Queen City Law will continue to play a central role.

:banana::banana::banana::banana:

This is from Queen City Law's website regarding Elliot Tower (updated December):

Thanks very much for that!!
Hopefully we will have the Population (trying to get back on thread :)) to fill it if it is indeed built...;)

When did i say the rest of the country is insignficant? We need people to raise cows and tend crops, but if you want to be involved in business, finance, culture and all that stuff then you need to be in the city and there really is only one real city in nz and thats auckland. Its just being realistic.

Hmm you're right, with James Cameron moving to a farm in the Wairarapa, the guys and girls at Weta can get off their bums to help raise those cows and tend them crops.

Hmm you're right, with James Cameron moving to a farm in the Wairarapa, the guys and girls at Weta can get off their bums to help raise those cows and tend them crops.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the uproar about a rich foreigner buying up more productive land. The silence has thus far been deafening.

Hmm you're right, with James Cameron moving to a farm in the Wairarapa, the guys and girls at Weta can get off their bums to help raise those cows and tend them crops.

Y'all got a fine point there. I should be out in them fields tending them sheep and keepin' them ******s out. *Spits out tobbaco* But I just cain't get off this com-pu-ter. Now I ain't rich or nothin' or educashid but I cain't see what this city slicker is on about.

He really shouldn't commenting on the rest of the country if his impresion of provincial New Zealand is Gisborne. It'd be like me saying that the rest of New Zealand is exactly like Motueka, or Blenheim.

Bring on Elliot :banana::cheers:

On the other hand Christchurch has gone down to
367,700. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch or
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/subnational-pop-estimates-tables.aspx
Is expected to loose more people as red zone suburbs are cleared of housing in 2013.


Bit of a shame, it was on track to hit 400k very soon.
Still, a boon for Timaru/Dunedin/Invercargill/Nelson.

This is from Queen City Law's website regarding Elliot Tower (updated December):

I cannot find this anyhere.

Could you please give us a link?

It will be very interesting to read.

I cannot find this anyhere.

Could you please give us a link?

It will be very interesting to read.

Here you go:

http://www.queencitylaw.co.nz/services-property-development.php

I've read on their site and 2 projects really catch my eye... :banana:

28-32 Shortland Street (http://www.queencitylaw.co.nz/properties-for-sale-detail.php?id=2)

and

Greys Avenue (http://www.queencitylaw.co.nz/properties-for-sale-detail.php?id=4)

Are they waiting for funding? I don't understand what stage they are in the process. I'm very excited nonetheless. Sorry if I seem like I don't much about these things. Just an enthusiast.

Here's an interesting statistic from an article in the Taranaki Daily Newspaper here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/6373467/Going-going-1426-gone)

THE BIGGEST LOSERS (net permanent migration)

1: Waikato -1588

2: Canterbury -1548

3: Bay of Plenty-1340

4: Northland -921

5: Hawke's Bay -780

10: Taranaki -275

I've read on their site and 2 projects really catch my eye... :banana:

28-32 Shortland Street (http://www.queencitylaw.co.nz/properties-for-sale-detail.php?id=2)

and

Greys Avenue (http://www.queencitylaw.co.nz/properties-for-sale-detail.php?id=4)

Are they waiting for funding? I don't understand what stage they are in the process. I'm very excited nonetheless. Sorry if I seem like I don't much about these things. Just an enthusiast.

I wouldn't get too excited those sites are just for sale. The shortland street site had been where Korean developer Dae Ju (original developer of the Elliot tower) had planned to build a tower ,which they got consented. A couple of years ago they said they were putting Elliot on hold and this one would be full steam ahead (they have since sold the Elliot site to another developer I think) however it looks like they have canned Shortland Street and are selling that as well . Who knows when something would be built there it has been empty for over twenty years. Don't know anything about the Grey's ave site.

I also would not get hopes too high about Elliot it is positive that they appear to want to progress the project but as we have seen anything can happen in a year and we have seen a number of developments (Saffron, Rhubarb lane) that have supposedly been on track to start contruction only to fall over due to a lack of funding. A $400 million tower is hugely ambitious in a city this size, good luck to them if they do pull it off but i wouldn't be surprised if they can't. Don't mean to be the voice of doom but given how things are the odds would be against it.

Here's an interesting statistic from an article in the Taranaki Daily Newspaper here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/6373467/Going-going-1426-gone)

THE BIGGEST LOSERS (net permanent migration)

1: Waikato -1588

2: Canterbury -1548

3: Bay of Plenty-1340

4: Northland -921

5: Hawke's Bay -780

10: Taranaki -275

I wonder who gained the most?

Here's an interesting statistic from an article in the Taranaki Daily Newspaper here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/6373467/Going-going-1426-gone)

THE BIGGEST LOSERS (net permanent migration)

1: Waikato -1588

2: Canterbury -1548

3: Bay of Plenty-1340

4: Northland -921

5: Hawke's Bay -780

10: Taranaki -275

I don't understand 1 and 3? How can Waikato and BoP take two of the top three spots for a net population loss?

It is quite surprising that the Waikato has had a large net outflow of people than Canterbury, considering the Christchurch earthquakes.

^^
Maybe those stats are just the number of immigrants minus the number of migrants rather than net population loss (i.e not taking into account natural increase.)

I wonder who gained the most?

Auckland? :dunno:

I wouldn't get too excited those sites are just for sale. The shortland street site had been where Korean developer Dae Ju (original developer of the Elliot tower) had planned to build a tower ,which they got consented. A couple of years ago they said they were putting Elliot on hold and this one would be full steam ahead (they have since sold the Elliot site to another developer I think) however it looks like they have canned Shortland Street and are selling that as well . Who knows when something would be built there it has been empty for over twenty years. Don't know anything about the Grey's ave site.

I also would not get hopes too high about Elliot it is positive that they appear to want to progress the project but as we have seen anything can happen in a year and we have seen a number of developments (Saffron, Rhubarb lane) that have supposedly been on track to start contruction only to fall over due to a lack of funding. A $400 million tower is hugely ambitious in a city this size, good luck to them if they do pull it off but i wouldn't be surprised if they can't. Don't mean to be the voice of doom but given how things are the odds would be against it.

Plenty of $400 million towers have been built in far less a city than Auckland.Its more of a mindset thing.No disrespect but we all know how they operate in some third world countries.
Look because of the ongoing GFC you're not going to see too many of these projects being built anywhere in the world outside of Asia.
Although this maybe still on the cards there is still no confidence or willingness in our market and so will not be built for some time.Once the confidence returns it will be all on again.

Auckland? :dunno:

You're right; Auckland gained around 6200.

I don't understand 1 and 3? How can Waikato and BoP take two of the top three spots for a net population loss?

Hamilton and Tauranga have growing populations, but in keeping with the current trends in migration nationally, the rural areas of the region are losing population.

Plenty of $400 million towers have been built in far less a city than Auckland.Its more of a mindset thing.No disrespect but we all know how they operate in some third world countries.
Look because of the ongoing GFC you're not going to see too many of these projects being built anywhere in the world outside of Asia.
Although this maybe still on the cards there is still no confidence or willingness in our market and so will not be built for some time.Once the confidence returns it will be all on again.

I agree it would take a long time for this project to happen. However I wouldn't be so confident it will be "all on" again. In Auckland, with regards to real highrise developments it was never really all on in the first place. Real highrise developments have been pretty limited even during boom times. Many of the sites around the city, including the Elliot have been empty for over twenty years so i wouldn't be too sure that suddenly skyscrapers will spring from the ground here even when confidence comes back to the economy. I guess my point is that there is a fair chance that many of the ambitious projects like Elliot may never have gone ahead even if the GFC had not come. It pays to temper expectations when it comes to this city.

Hamilton and Tauranga have growing populations, but in keeping with the current trends in migration nationally, the rural areas of the region are losing population.

Would also have to ponder at how many moving out of Waikato/BOP are moving to Auckland.. just a short drive north.

Jobs maybe?

PROJECTED POPULATION OF REGIONAL COUNCIL AREAS 2006-2031

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/auckland.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/bayofplenty.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/canterbury.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/gisborne.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/hawkesbay.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/manawatu-wanganui.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/marlborough.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/nelson.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/northland.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/otago.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/southland.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/taranaki.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/tasman.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/waikato.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/wellington.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/popnz/westcoast.png

http://nzier.org.nz/sites/nzier.org.nz/files/WP2012-01%20-%20Grow%20for%20it%20.pdf

Those statistics IThomas posted may soon be out of date for the Nelson and Tasman regions with amalgamation now imminent.

Those statistics IThomas posted may soon be out of date for the Nelson and Tasman regions with amalgamation now imminent.

Ok Kiwiguy! Here's the new update :)

TASMAN+NELSON
HIGH 95.200 (2011) - 107.700 (2021) - 118.600 (2031)
MEDIUM 93.800 (2011) - 105.400 (2021) - 103.100 (2031)
LOW 91.400 (2011) - 91.100 (2021) - 88.000 (2031)

NZ’s Regions Rank Population 2031 – HIGH SCENARIO
01. Auckland (2.154.700)
02. Canterbury (736.400)
03. Wellington (618.700)
04. Waikato (534.200)
05. Bay of Plenty (368.800)
06. Manuwatu-Wanganui (272.100)
07. Otago (259.600)
08. Northland (195.900)
09. Hawke’s Bay (182.200)
10. Taranaki (127.000)
11. Tasman+Nelson (118.600)
12. Southland (102.500)
13. Marlborough (56.400)
14. Gisborne(54.300)
15. West Coast (36.900)

**********

In addition, I added my own vision of amalgamation (such as Tasman+Nelson) between the regions that have few inhabitants. In this way, the regions become 8. Before the map with the current regions and after the idea of new regions. Tell me what you think about this. :)

BEFORE
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/1-3.png

AFTER
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/2-3.png

AUCKLAND + NORTHLAND = 2.350.600
CANTERBURY = 736.400
WELLINGTON = 618.700
BAY OF PLENTY + HAWKE'S BAY + GISBORNE = 605.300
WAIKATO = 534.200
MANUWATU WANGANUI + TARANAKI = 399.100
OTAGO + SOUTHLAND = 362.100
TASMAN + NELSON + MARLBOROUGH + WEST COAST = 211.900

I think it's a map drawn by someone who knows little about NZ.

Nelson & Tasman are amalgamating because Nelson+Richmond are basically one city. They were a unique case as both Nelson and Tasman were already unitary authorities. What you're doing is merging entire disparate regions.

Merging Northland and Auckland, or Otago and Southland, would achieve what exactly?

A more helpful amalgamation would be Environment Southland and Southland District, for example.

Great work Ithomas! love the detail.
Can you do the same with city/town populations in each region too?

Great work Ithomas! love the detail.
Can you do the same with city/town populations in each region too?

Use this, you can zoom down to individual meshblocks just a handful of houses.
http://apps.nowwhere.com.au/StatsNZ/Maps/default.aspx

I think it's a map drawn by someone who knows little about NZ. Nelson & Tasman are amalgamating because Nelson+Richmond are basically one city. They were a unique case as both Nelson and Tasman were already unitary authorities. What you're doing is merging entire disparate regions. Merging Northland and Auckland, or Otago and Southland, would achieve what exactly? A more helpful amalgamation would be Environment Southland and Southland District, for example.


Thanks for the comment :) In fact it was just an idea that may be questionable and should be improved. For example, to reduce the regions and have territorial continuity as you would do? What would you have joined?

Sorry I was a bit harsh, the stats you posted earlier were interesting!
I don't know enough about regions other than Southland to be able to comment on district amalgamations within them.

Sorry I was a bit harsh, the stats you posted earlier were interesting!
I don't know enough about regions other than Southland to be able to comment on district amalgamations within them.

All it means for Nelson and Tasman is the combined use of local government funding and resources and our place in the country as the single largest district council in terms of size.

All it means for Nelson and Tasman is the combined use of local government funding and resources and our place in the country as the single largest district council in terms of size.

IMO it makes perfect sense for the Nelson-Tasman amalgamation to occur, however amalgamating Taranaki, Wanganui, and Manawatu into a single district (as IThomas has suggested) could cause far more cost inefficiences and loss of focus on resolving local issues.

IMO it makes perfect sense for the Nelson-Tasman amalgamation to occur, however amalgamating Taranaki, Wanganui, and Manawatu into a single district (as IThomas has suggested) could cause far more cost inefficiences and loss of focus on resolving local issues.

Likewise I think the following mergers make a bit more sense:

Waikato + Western BOP
East coast + Hawkes Bay + Eastern BOP

All it means for Nelson and Tasman is the combined use of local government funding and resources and our place in the country as the single largest district council in terms of size.

They're less than one third the size of Southland District (excl Invercargill and Gore) :)

UN guesses the shape of the world by 2100New Zealand will have over six millions people
The latest United Nations population estimates, say the global population will reach 10bn in the next 90 years. According to the UN Population Division's best-case 'medium' estimate - and you can see the original report here - it will take 13 years to add the eighth billion, 18 years to add the ninth billion and 40 years to reach the tenth billion.

The big increases are coming from countries with high fertility rates - the high-fertility countries identified by the UN comprise of 39 countries in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.

Today, 42% of the world's population lives in low-fertility countries, defined in the UN report as "countries where women are not having enough children to ensure that, on average, each woman is replaced by a daughter who survives to the age of procreation".

Low-fertility countries include all countries in Europe except Iceland and Ireland. Europe is the one region in the world to see its population decline by 2100.


http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/UN21001.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/UN21001-Copia.png

So those UN pedictions for G20 countries are in millions, yes? I find it very hard to believe that Brazil will drop almost 20 million people. Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol. And I think that will only strengthen growth especially when peak oil rocks around.

Where the hell are almost half a billion Chinese going to be?

Maybe some will emigrate and a lot will die and not be replaced with their low birth rate.

So those UN pedictions for G20 countries are in millions, yes? I find it very hard to believe that Brazil will drop almost 20 million people. Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol. And I think that will only strengthen growth especially when peak oil rocks around.

Where the hell are almost half a billion Chinese going to be?

Yes. The G20 countries are in millions. Even to me, is hard to imagine that a country like Brazil can lose almost 20 million inhabitants, this I think because in other charts this scenario does not occur. Are in agreement as regards the countries: Italy, Japan, Russia and South Korea, which in other classifications are down. I have doubts about Germany if it is or not in the previous situation.
With regard to China, I was very impressed by the more than 400 million loss ... Perhaps it can be justified by new style of life that the Chinese are dealing with in these years and those in the future, migration, or why it continues to be in place by 1979, the one-child policy (which according to the calculations of demographers to this rate the country will reach its peak population in 2026 with 1.4 billion people then begin to decline in subsequent years; in this way will be avoided from 250 to about 400 million births) ... We'll see! :)

So those UN pedictions for G20 countries are in millions, yes? I find it very hard to believe that Brazil will drop almost 20 million people. Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol. And I think that will only strengthen growth especially when peak oil rocks around.

Where the hell are almost half a billion Chinese going to be?

Dead like the rest of us I suspect.

It's pretty common knowledge that China's population is going to decline over this century.

If only India bothered to do the same.

Blah, I'm Chinese, and I know that the Indians really have pride in having more people than China in the future. Some people I know in fact rub it into our faces.

This is why i have some disrespect for Indians. They keep comparing themselves to us.

Why would they be proud of having more people?
If they have more people who are also wealthier and more proseperous I could understand, but simply being proud to have more people is a bit silly.

They sort of derive some sick pleasure from trying to beat the Chinese in any aspect no matter what.

1.6 billion people in India :ohno:

Just insane. They would be better off trying to get it down to 700 million and increasing the average wealth. Unless they just want to remain a low income country with rampant poverty, because that is all they will ever be with that chronic overcrowding.

1.6 billion people in India :ohno:

Just insane. They would be better off trying to get it down to 700 million and increasing the average wealth. Unless they just want to remain a low income country with rampant poverty, because that is all they will ever be with that chronic overcrowding.

Yeah and just remember that India is a MUCH smaller country in land area...
India = 368 people/sqkm
China = 139 people/sqkm

Insane... too many people in too smaller area for a country that cannot provide enough food for it's own population.

Why would they be proud of having more people?
If they have more people who are also wealthier and more proseperous I could understand, but simply being proud to have more people is a bit silly.

I agree with you. It is not the quantity but the quality that makes the difference :)

Yeah and just remember that India is a MUCH smaller country in land area...
India = 368 people/sqkm
China = 139 people/sqkm

Insane... too many people in too smaller area for a country that cannot provide enough food for it's own population.

So much misinformation here..

First, India produces enough food.. Remember India is a net food exporter and has remained self sufficient since the Green Revolution in 1960s. The problem lies in distribution, not in production and steps are being taken to reduce these problems.

Second, yes, India is smaller in size than China. But, that doesn't mean India has lesser capacity. Most of Western and Northern parts of China are mountainous and desertic which is not suitable for sustainable living. China has lesser arable land than India. In fact, India has the 2nd highest amount of arable land after US in the whole world.

China's arable land is 14.86% of its total land area = 1,435,485 sq.km(Ref. CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2097.html))

India's arable land is ~49% of its total land area = 1,456,864 sq km

So, If u take the land area which can support human living in a sustainable manner, India has a better pop.density.

Also, the Total Fertility Rate(TFR) for India is ~2.3 which is almost reaching replacement levels(2.1). So, population has started to stabilize to some extent. But, I would never want the TFR value of 1.3 of China today which means its population is becoming older and older.

And you have to remember that both India and China have a skewed up sex ratio which would put a lot more pressure on the demographics of both countries.

And finally, no one in India is proud that we will beat China in total population. Seriously, can any right minded person think like that? Come on guys, be rational.

To sum up, no one is denying that problems exist in India. Yes, we are still a poor country. We have a lot of problems. But, Stop applying your NZ standards while analyzing a developing country and start commenting without knowing the ground situation.

It seems like a bit of an underestimate to suggest that NZ will only have 6.3m people by 2010. Stats NZ suggests that we will be at 5.75m by 2061 so to suggest that there would only be an increase of 600k people over another 40 year period doesn't seem quite right.

I also saw something recently (don't know if it was here or somewhere else) that suggested NZ should aim for a population of 15m by something like 2100. The argument was that the country could handle that sort of population but would give us enough scale for self sustaining internal economy. It would mean we would need some pretty big cities compared to what we have now though e.g. Auckland would probably need to be at least 5m while I imagine a similar number spread between Wellington and Christchurch then a whole heap of towns around the 100k mark.

Density of G20 countries (escluding EU) + New Zealand by 2100 (UN report)
India471,7/sqkm
South Korea 371,4/sqkm
United Kingdom 310,6/sqkm
Japan 241,6/sqkm
Germany 197,1/sqkm
Italy 184,5/sqkm
Indonesia 132,4/sqkm
France 118,9/sqkm
Turkey 101/sqkm
China 97,6/sqkm
Mexico 64,4/sqkm
United States 48,6/sqkm
South Africa 44,6/sqkm
New Zealand 23,5/sqkm
Brazil 20,8/sqkm
Saudi Arabia 19,7/sqkm
Argentina 17,6/sqkm
Russia 6,5/sqkm
Canada 4,8/sqkm
Australia 4,7/sqkm

It seems like a bit of an underestimate to suggest that NZ will only have 6.3m people by 2010. Stats NZ suggests that we will be at 5.75m by 2061 so to suggest that there would only be an increase of 600k people over another 40 year period doesn't seem quite right.

I also saw something recently (don't know if it was here or somewhere else) that suggested NZ should aim for a population of 15m by something like 2100. The argument was that the country could handle that sort of population but would give us enough scale for self sustaining internal economy. It would mean we would need some pretty big cities compared to what we have now though e.g. Auckland would probably need to be at least 5m while I imagine a similar number spread between Wellington and Christchurch then a whole heap of towns around the 100k mark.

I do not know what to tell you about the fact that NZ reaches 15 million, however these are the figures I found from the UN report. I'll do more research to see if there are other options. :)

It seems like a bit of an underestimate to suggest that NZ will only have 6.3m people by 2010. Stats NZ suggests that we will be at 5.75m by 2061 so to suggest that there would only be an increase of 600k people over another 40 year period doesn't seem quite right.

I also saw something recently (don't know if it was here or somewhere else) that suggested NZ should aim for a population of 15m by something like 2100. The argument was that the country could handle that sort of population but would give us enough scale for self sustaining internal economy. It would mean we would need some pretty big cities compared to what we have now though e.g. Auckland would probably need to be at least 5m while I imagine a similar number spread between Wellington and Christchurch then a whole heap of towns around the 100k mark.

Then again, a lot can happen in 88 years. Think about how the world was 88 years ago! How the heck can we begin to predict 88 years into the future for any country? We could all be bowing to our guinea pig overlords who built a gigantic warren in the middle of the Andes for all we know.

I, for one, welcome our new guinea pig overlords and I look forward to rounding up others to toil in their underground warrens...

Found it, it was a paper from the NZIER http://nzier.org.nz/publications/grow-for-it-how-population-policies-can-can-promote-economic-growth-nzier-working-paper

They suggest we aim for a population of 15m within 50 years.

I would suggest 10 million by 2060, having an open immigration policy extending to greeks scots and irishmen. Also spanish people too! We need these skilled and squandered peoples in conjuntion with the Asian immigrants!!!

...greeks scots and irishmen ... spanish people too! We need these skilled and squandered peoples in conjuntion with the Asian immigrants!!!
...and you need not of Italians?
before:pet: after:hug:

Bring the Italians, Greeks and Spanish, they need jobs and NZ needs some skilled people and what a great mix of people it would be, would make the ethnic mix quite exciting I believe. Guess some more Irish would be welcome too.

...and you need not of Italians?
before:pet: after:hug:

Italians are great too! They have great food! and they are descended from the great Roman Empire!:banana:

Italians are great too! They have great food! and they are descended from the great Roman Empire!:banana:
Thanks! :hug: and :cheers1:

I, for one, welcome our new guinea pig overlords and I look forward to rounding up others to toil in their underground warrens...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I would suggest 10 million by 2060, having an open immigration policy extending to greeks scots and irishmen. Also spanish people too! We need these skilled and squandered peoples in conjuntion with the Asian immigrants!!!

I would like to order a few thousand Lebs and Canadian-Jews thx

I would like to order a few thousand Lebs and Canadian-Jews thx

Those two cultures mixed together might start a riot here.

what are the projections for NZ over the next 50 years?

it would be interesting to compare with QLD and Sydney which have around the same population figures.

^^
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/pop-1.png

thanks for that thomas

New Zealand population growth stalls
The population of New Zealand has grown by less than one per cent in the last year - the lowest in 11 years. There are 4,430,400 people in the country as of March 31, 27,700 or 0.6 per cent more than last year, Statistics New Zealand said today. The population growth was the lowest since March 2001, when it only increased by 0.5 per cent. An excess of 31,100 births over deaths caused population growth during the year to March, and there was a net migration loss of 3400. "A combination of fewer births, more deaths and more people leaving New Zealand has resulted in the country's lowest population growth since 2011," population statistics manager Andrea Blackburn said.
The New Zealand population also continues to age, with people aged 65 years and over exceeding 600,000, up to 14 per cent from 12 per cent in the year to March. Within the older age group, those 80 years or older were the fastest growing group. "In the next 40 years, the number of people aged 80 years and over is expected to more than triple from 160,000 to exceed half a million," Blackburn said. There were less people aged 15 years or younger, falling from 22 to 20 per cent.

^^ very concerning demographics. Good for those worried about housing affordability though

It is a bit concerning. Over on the Oz population thread, a newspaper article mentioned 25,000 New Zealanders came across the Tasman last year...

It is a bit concerning. Over on the Oz population thread, a newspaper article mentioned 25,000 New Zealanders came across the Tasman last year...

53,000 Moved across the Tasman in the year to February. That is 1.1% of NZ's entire population - not a big worry at all. I see it as a positive for NZ ... growth is sustainable and our unemployment figures would have been much higher if these people didn't leave. As long as we have a net gain we are okay :colgate:

The big worry is the growing number of pensioners but that is a problem that most developed nations face (including Australia) and there will be a reason to be concerned if we start showing a net loss year after year.

To put things in perspective - Population growth rate slumps to six-year low in Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/population-growth-rate-slumps-to-six-year-low/story-e6frg6nf-1226226194111)

53,000 Moved across the Tasman in the year to February. That is 1.1% of NZ's entire population - not a big worry at all. I see it as a positive for NZ ... growth is sustainable and our unemployment figures would have been much higher if these people didn't leave. As long as we have a net gain we are okay :colgate:

The big worry is the growing number of pensioners but that is a problem that most developed nations face (including Australia) and there will be a reason to be concerned if we start showing a net loss year after year.

To put things in perspective - Population growth rate slumps to six-year low in Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/population-growth-rate-slumps-to-six-year-low/story-e6frg6nf-1226226194111)

The Net loss is about 40k though as some kiwis come back.

Personally I think losing 40k a year to Australia is a big concern, but unfortunately I cannot see anyway to stop it.

The Net loss is about 40k though as some kiwis come back.

Personally I think losing 40k a year to Australia is a big concern, but unfortunately I cannot see anyway to stop it.

Okay just checked, the net loss is 38 000 (0.85% of the population) ... I don't think that it needs to be stopped and it won't ... NZ has a history of ebb and flow. It is the way of the World - the Global Village allows people to come and go as they please.

:lol: @ the guy who thinks that living in Kalgoorlie is a dream ... I would rather be poor than live there ... This article sums up what most people who have made the move tell me .... "don't bother".

Move to Oz dream for some, but it's not all roses (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806119)

And the average house price ...

Sydney $605,000
Melbourne $557,750
Canberra $560,000
Perth $487,000
Brisbane $459,000
Auckland $ 443,193
Adelaide $405,000

:lol: @ the guy who thinks that living in Kalgoorlie is a dream ... I would rather be poor than live there ... This article sums up what most people who have made the move tell me .... "don't bother".

Oh my God .. After seeing where and what condition is Kalgoorlie :ohno:, I must say that the guy in question has some serious problems to say "that to move there is the dream of his life" :lol:

Oh my God .. After seeing where and what condition is Kalgoorlie :ohno:, I must say that the guy in question has some serious problems to say "that to move there is the dream of his life" :lol:

Wait until you see the tv show "Kalgoorlie Cops" ... the women are stronger than the men :lol:

There's always two sides to every story ... An Aussie living in New Zealand (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10806257)

:lol: @ the guy who thinks that living in Kalgoorlie is a dream ... I would rather be poor than live there ... This article sums up what most people who have made the move tell me .... "don't bother".

Move to Oz dream for some, but it's not all roses (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806119)

And the average house price ...

Sydney $605,000
Melbourne $557,750
Canberra $560,000
Perth $487,000
Brisbane $459,000
Auckland $ 443,193
Adelaide $405,000

Yeah I was reading that yesterday and thinking "What the fuck". His dream is to live in the middle of the outback in a dusty mining town?

Wait until you see the tv show "Kalgoorlie Cops" ... the women are stronger than the men :lol:

LOOOOL

Move to Oz dream for some, but it's not all roses
Actually I maybe the only one on here that feels for his plight as I been in that situation too working 2 jobs in NZ and still strugling to survive with no hope of any future had to move to regional OZ as houses are not always selling for 500,000+ like in the capital cities. Where you can save easier and get onto the property ladder which is so hard to back home as no bank would give me a morgage in NZ even with a big deposit.
That guy Shane Bell has not said he will buy a house in Kalgoorlie seems to be still in the planning stage, he is just renting and trying to save up and in a job that pays twice what he got as a security guard in NZ. I say good for him as he was really in a rut in Auckland not being able to keep his head above water.

EDIT

Now refresh the discussion :cheers:

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/CITIES.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/LITTLECOMUNITIES.jpg

Oh look, Stats NZ once again projecting unkind figures for Invercargill. I recall they projected circa 2001 that we'd be down to 45,000 by this time instead of up to 53,000, so once again I imagine they'll be proven wrong and can suck my dick.

Aren't those projections old ? Waitakere City, Manukau City etc. don't exist anymore ...

Oh look, Stats NZ once again projecting unkind figures for Invercargill. I recall they projected circa 2001 that we'd be down to 45,000 by this time instead of up to 53,000, so once again I imagine they'll be proven wrong and can suck my dick.

lol:cheers:

There's always two sides to every story ... An Aussie living in New Zealand (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10806257)

That was an interesting read SYDNEY...

The sad fact is that the whole "life is better in Australia" is nothing but a worn out line used by opposition parties which does NOTHiNG to boost NZ's image. In Australia, no-one gives a fuck that their incomes are supposedly 30% higher than here...they just get on with it. It's only NZ'ers that have this pathetic inferiority complex.

And in any case, the reality is FAR different from what we're led to believe.

See, it always irks me how someone living in somewhere like say Invercargill grizzles that there are no jobs and what jobs their are are poorly paid, and then goes and compares it with living in Sydney and Brisbane etc... something that isn't exactly comparing Apple's for Apple's.

Ideally it would be better to actually compare similar cities... eg: Maybe Wellington to Canberra or Christchurch to Hobart or something.

I'd say chances are, when you also take the true cost of living into account, most people probably won't be anywhere near the 30% better off that opposition governments here love to state.

Take one of the biggest misnomers... petrol is cheaper in Australia....

At the pump, it might be cheaper on a per litre basis, but a more useful metric would be "how much does an Australian spend on automotive fuel each year compared to a NZer?"... When you consider that the average Australian drives a LOT further each year than the average Kiwi does, then the net result is that an Australian uses about 20% MORE fuel each year than a Kiwi does... that pretty much closes that gap somewhat.

Don't believe me? Look here (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2005-2005&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=9,134&ccID=)

And of course, speaking of the influences of automotibles... last I checked, the cost of a new BMW 335i in New Zealand Dollars comes to $108,000 in New Zealand, and a whopping $130,000 in Australia! Okay, an Australian assembled car is about the same cost in Oz as in NZ, but not everyone wants to buy Australian cars...

What about Bananas? Fuck they grow them in Oz so surely they'll be cheaper than in NZ where we have to ship them from half a world away? Uhhhh... Nope...
In Australia (http://www2.woolworthsonline.com.au/#url=/Shop/ProductDetails%3FStockcode%3D133211%26name%3Dfresh-banana%26search%3Dbananas)
In NZ (http://shop.countdown.co.nz/?banner=www#url=/Shop/ProductDetails%3FStockcode%3D133211%26name%3Dfresh-produce-bananas-yellow%26search%3Dbananas)

What about Electricity Prices?
For a household using 9284 units/year (thats me) there appeared to be a good 15% savings for NZers when looking at the options on these Australian (http://www.switchwise.com.au) and NZ (http://www.powerswitch.org.nz) power switch sites.

And insurance?
Obviously this is too hard to compare but it's very well known that most insurances are significantly more expensive in Oz and NZ.

Interest Rates on a Mortgage?
Variable Rates are a little bit higher in OZ (http://www.anz.com/personal/home%2Dloans/rates%2Dfees/) at 7.05% for the current floating rate than in NZ (http://www.anz.co.nz/ratefee/Interest.asp?section=PHLNZ#PHLNZ) at 5.74%
And Fixed isn't any better for the Aussies either... with Australians paying 0.5-1.0% more.

The ONLY real thing that I'd agree on is that there are simply more opportunities in Australia than in NZ since it is a far bigger economy. If you're happy to live in the big cities and are an Accountant or Legal professional, then yes, the larger financial centre that Sydney is is bound to offer more options and a fatter wallet to boot.

Likewise if you are happy to work half a km underground in the back and beyond like Kalgoorlie, then yes, the more developed mining industry will sure help keep the bills paid.

But nobody seems to take the niceties in life into account... Those Sydneysiders are welcome to spend up to 2.5 hours each day in their cars driving to and from work, and the miners are also welcome to spend their 8 hours a day in 40deg temperatures... I myself would rather the 30 min commute, live in the country, work in the city, go for a round of golf after work, maybe a bit of surfing among many many other things that I bet even many Australians would only dream of...

So in this land of great opportunity... the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence. I just wish the politicians would shut the fuck up on the issue and just "get on with it" like the Australians do.

Aren't those projections old ? Waitakere City, Manukau City etc. don't exist anymore ...

Yes. The projections of 2031, are based upon estimated population of 2001. The source of these projections is Stats NZ.

That was an interesting read SYDNEY...

The sad fact is that the whole "life is better in Australia" is nothing but a worn out line used by opposition parties which does NOTHiNG to boost NZ's image. In Australia, no-one gives a fuck that their incomes are supposedly 30% higher than here...they just get on with it. It's only NZ'ers that have this pathetic inferiority complex.

And in any case, the reality is FAR different from what we're led to believe.

See, it always irks me how someone living in somewhere like say Invercargill grizzles that there are no jobs and what jobs their are are poorly paid, and then goes and compares it with living in Sydney and Brisbane etc... something that isn't exactly comparing Apple's for Apple's.

Ideally it would be better to actually compare similar cities... eg: Maybe Wellington to Canberra or Christchurch to Hobart or something.

I'd say chances are, when you also take the true cost of living into account, most people probably won't be anywhere near the 30% better off that opposition governments here love to state.

Take one of the biggest misnomers... petrol is cheaper in Australia....

At the pump, it might be cheaper on a per litre basis, but a more useful metric would be "how much does an Australian spend on automotive fuel each year compared to a NZer?"... When you consider that the average Australian drives a LOT further each year than the average Kiwi does, then the net result is that an Australian uses about 20% MORE fuel each year than a Kiwi does... that pretty much closes that gap somewhat.

Don't believe me? Look here (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2005-2005&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=9,134&ccID=)

And of course, speaking of the influences of automotibles... last I checked, the cost of a new BMW 335i in New Zealand Dollars comes to $108,000 in New Zealand, and a whopping $130,000 in Australia! Okay, an Australian assembled car is about the same cost in Oz as in NZ, but not everyone wants to buy Australian cars...

What about Bananas? Fuck they grow them in Oz so surely they'll be cheaper than in NZ where we have to ship them from half a world away? Uhhhh... Nope...
In Australia (http://www2.woolworthsonline.com.au/#url=/Shop/ProductDetails%3FStockcode%3D133211%26name%3Dfresh-banana%26search%3Dbananas)
In NZ (http://shop.countdown.co.nz/?banner=www#url=/Shop/ProductDetails%3FStockcode%3D133211%26name%3Dfresh-produce-bananas-yellow%26search%3Dbananas)

What about Electricity Prices?
For a household using 9284 units/year (thats me) there appeared to be a good 15% savings for NZers when looking at the options on these Australian (http://www.switchwise.com.au) and NZ (http://www.powerswitch.org.nz) power switch sites.

And insurance?
Obviously this is too hard to compare but it's very well known that most insurances are significantly more expensive in Oz and NZ.

Interest Rates on a Mortgage?
Variable Rates are a little bit higher in OZ (http://www.anz.com/personal/home%2Dloans/rates%2Dfees/) at 7.05% for the current floating rate than in NZ (http://www.anz.co.nz/ratefee/Interest.asp?section=PHLNZ#PHLNZ) at 5.74%
And Fixed isn't any better for the Aussies either... with Australians paying 0.5-1.0% more.

The ONLY real thing that I'd agree on is that there are simply more opportunities in Australia than in NZ since it is a far bigger economy. If you're happy to live in the big cities and are an Accountant or Legal professional, then yes, the larger financial centre that Sydney is is bound to offer more options and a fatter wallet to boot.

Likewise if you are happy to work half a km underground in the back and beyond like Kalgoorlie, then yes, the more developed mining industry will sure help keep the bills paid.

But nobody seems to take the niceties in life into account... Those Sydneysiders are welcome to spend up to 2.5 hours each day in their cars driving to and from work, and the miners are also welcome to spend their 8 hours a day in 40deg temperatures... I myself would rather the 30 min commute, live in the country, work in the city, go for a round of golf after work, maybe a bit of surfing among many many other things that I bet even many Australians would only dream of...

So in this land of great opportunity... the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence. I just wish the politicians would shut the fuck up on the issue and just "get on with it" like the Australians do.

Exactly. Well said. To be honest, the media can take a lot of the blame. Stuff.co.nz is particularly fond of running down NZ for some reason, and then you have the same 300 people whinging about it in the comments section for every story.

Yes indeed, well said. I am starting to wonder if the NZ Herald is Australian owned, almost monthly they run these pro-Aussie (one-sided) articles. A friend of mine got caught up in this ra ra Aussie stint and moved to Melbourne. In Auckland he lived close to the beach in a two bedroom apartment - he owned a car and all his belongings. Since moving to Australia he now has to share with two others, he has no car and only owns a bed and tv. He would love to come back but under false illusions he has raked up over $20 000.00 debt .. it is not Australia's fault but his own - needless to say that he is stuck and lost all the willpower to start afresh.

My sister lives in Brisbane and they are struggling their tits off, she is close to moving back to South Africa (stupid girl) ... she would move to Auckland (and loves it) but her husband has only heard bad things about NZ from his Aussie colleagues and he has no interest to even see NZ - his loss :lol:

One of my mum's best friend's also lives in Melbourne and she has to have two jobs to make ends meet ... it is not all moonshine and roses. C and I will not sell our soul for money :cheers: I can go on and on and on. Everybody that we know who lives in Australia has told us that NZ is as good as it gets and that we should stay where we are.

Pretty much. Wages are higher in Aus, but so is the cost of living. From personal experience, it's a mixed bag when it comes to finances.

Where the two countries can differ is the lifestyle. As KaneD touched on, in Sydney and Melbourne (and even in Brisbane), average commutes are ridiculous. Though some people prefer the urban lifestyles that NZ can't offer.

The saying "the grass is always greener" is just so true where ever you are. I have lived in Sydney for nearly nine years now and look at all the benefits NZ has to offer and know that for NZ wins hands down in a number of areas eg raising families, healthcare, and closer communities. However, Australia is the same, there are a number of great things - the higher wages will always attract people because its valued highly in peoples perception in a good quality of life. The weather will always be better if you like it hot. Australia is also really good if you want to make something of your life, there are just way more opportunities.
People also always have something to complain about too, this thing about commutes being ridiculous in Australia, yes it could be better, but when in Sydney or Melbourne, cities three times the size of Auckland, 10 times the size of Chch and Wellington, it's pretty good, the traffic in my opionion flows faster, you just might have to travel further.
I just appreciate that I can choose to live in the two best countries in the world.

After reading a few recent pages on this thread, its interesting how the is a general reference to "Australia", its not that black and white. Australia is a far more varied country than New Zealand both culturally and economically.

Parts of Australia (certain states) I'd argue are culturally and economically ahead of NZ, but others fall way behind NZ.

Australia, and its different states, vary too much for the country to be generally compared as a whole with relation to NZ.

It is never that clear cut - each to their own. We would never be able to have the same lifestyle that we have here in say Sydney and/or Melbourne when you compare apples with apples. We are way, way, way better off here in NZ ... both on a personal preference basis and monetary basis. I for one can't stand the "roughness" of Australian cities - hordes of advertising, unloved buildings, over-head wires and more over-head wires but then again I LOVE Melbourne's CBD which I hope that we can re-create in the next few years (or decades). I also love the scenic beauty of NZ ... no matter where you are it is stunning.

As for culture etc. that is what travel is for and some of us are luckier than others, we can go to Sydney and/or Melbourne and get our fix of culture/shopping then return to the comfort of our homes. The funny thing is that every time we start planning a trip away we always land up exploring the parts of NZ that we love and/or haven't explored yet. We obviously don't need that cultural fix.

I also never say never - nobody knows what life has in store for them and everybody's needs are different but I do wish that the local media would stop going on about it as if it is some National crises. If people want to leave let them leave (there are millions who want to stay and thousands who want live in NZ -if only it was that easy for them to get in). I quite honestly couldn't give a toss if Joe Soap can't afford a house in Auckland but he can afford one in Kalgoorlie :lol: - so be it and good for him.

Even after 20 Years in OZ , still miss NZ terribly ...and Sydneys Photos never help :lol: :ohno: :hug:
IMO in Australia ( main centers ) if you are a Couple earning below $ 100 K you are practically living in Poverty , if between $ 100 K and $ 150 K ...Manage Okay ........over that .......comfortable ........:)
As with us have friends earning $ 200 K Plus and believe it or not , can struggle form Time to Time , of course depending on Lifestyles and self infliction .....
:nuts:
There are many great opinions in previous Posts , and I agree with most , a two way Street .......and two great Countries :cheers:

Anyone know what the cost of living, commute times, house prices etc. are when comparing Auckland to Perth or Adelaide? (I'm pretty sure Perth is more expensive.) It seems to be a better comparison than talking about Sydney and Melbourne.

I think if you were a young male with no baggage, fit and healthy and wanted to make a fast buck in the mines for a few years, then yes, Australia is pretty hard to beat. It would certainly help you to climb a few rungs up the wealth ladder... something that ordinarily in both countries is quite hard to do otherwise.

Likewise if you were a very career focussed person, then Australia does indeed offer far more opportunities than NZ could simply due the much larger economy and centre of commerce that Australia has.

But for your more mainstream family unit trying to make ends meet and live a happy, enjoyable and healthy life then I'd say that for the most part, neither country is better or worse and each has it's benefits and pitfalls.

Of course the stats must count for something though and I think it is a concern that the migration rates generally favour an outflow from NZ to Oz... Something that the government should endeavour to rebalance - if only to shut the media and opposition political parties up. That would help encourage NZ'ers to be a little more patriotic and proud.

But it's not all bad though because contrary to the media and opposition parties rather misleading "brain drain" spiel, statistically it's actually more working class low and no-skilled people that are more likely to move to Aussie. Apparently only something like 10% of true NZ migrants to Australia are in the skilled category. This fact is as true now as it was when Robert Muldoon came up with the infamous quote in the 1980s that "NZ migrants moving to Australia are helping to increase the IQ of both countries"

I am starting to wonder if the NZ Herald is Australian owned, almost monthly they run these pro-Aussie (one-sided) articles.

Another article from NZ Herald - "the Hell" :lol:

OZ exodus surges to new record
The number of New Zealanders packing their bags and heading to Australia accelerated in April, with a new record number of annual departures at 53,462. Some 4,500 people left New Zealand for Australia in April for a net loss of 3,500 in the month, according to Statistics New Zealand. That took the annual net loss to 39,800, almost 13,000 more than the same annual exodus a year earlier. "Annual outflows to Australia have been at record levels since the November 2011 year," Statistics NZ said. The overall loss of migrants in April was 2,300 for an annual outflow of 4,000. That annual figure was made up of 83,800 new migrants arriving, and 87,800 leaving. People have been quitting New Zealand for Australia for years as they seek higher wages and a better standard of living across the Tasman. That diaspora has been captured in a controversial NZ On Air-funded reality TV programme, The GC, which follows a group of young Maori who emigrated to Queensland's Gold Coast, and has been likened to popular MTV programme 'Jersey Shore'.

The number of short-term visitor arrivals fell 1.1 per cent to 196,700 in April, led by a 23 per cent slump in European tourists, especially Germans, Irish, and Spaniards. Asian visitor numbers climbed 35 per cent in April from a year earlier to 11,600, with a rebound in the number of Japanese tourists after last year's earthquake and tsunami. On an annual basis, short-term visitor numbers rose 3.9 per cent to 2.6 million. Foreign tourist spending was flat in the year ended March 31 at $5.64 billion, according to government figures. That was put down to a rise in the number of cheap Australian visitors and falling numbers of big-spending Japanese and Korean tourists

Another article from NZ Herald - "the Hell" :lol:

OZ exodus surges to new record
The number of New Zealanders packing their bags and heading to Australia accelerated in April, with a new record number of annual departures at 53,462. Some 4,500 people left New Zealand for Australia in April for a net loss of 3,500 in the month, according to Statistics New Zealand. That took the annual net loss to 39,800, almost 13,000 more than the same annual exodus a year earlier. "Annual outflows to Australia have been at record levels since the November 2011 year," Statistics NZ said. The overall loss of migrants in April was 2,300 for an annual outflow of 4,000. That annual figure was made up of 83,800 new migrants arriving, and 87,800 leaving. People have been quitting New Zealand for Australia for years as they seek higher wages and a better standard of living across the Tasman. That diaspora has been captured in a controversial NZ On Air-funded reality TV programme, The GC, which follows a group of young Maori who emigrated to Queensland's Gold Coast, and has been likened to popular MTV programme 'Jersey Shore'.

The number of short-term visitor arrivals fell 1.1 per cent to 196,700 in April, led by a 23 per cent slump in European tourists, especially Germans, Irish, and Spaniards. Asian visitor numbers climbed 35 per cent in April from a year earlier to 11,600, with a rebound in the number of Japanese tourists after last year's earthquake and tsunami. On an annual basis, short-term visitor numbers rose 3.9 per cent to 2.6 million. Foreign tourist spending was flat in the year ended March 31 at $5.64 billion, according to government figures. That was put down to a rise in the number of cheap Australian visitors and falling numbers of big-spending Japanese and Korean tourists


Yeah, it's just the daily article about the very same topic. I think between them nzherald and stuff probably print the same story every day.

It's so stale and boring. Tomorrow it will be Stuff's turn.