NZ | Population Statistics Thread - Page 17

Milan Luka · July 13th, 2009, 11:30 AM

Just like Hamilton likes to add Te Awamutu, Cambridge to its figures. Hell why not add Auckland to really give your cities pop a boost. When the moment comes you can drive in a continuous urban area from Ngaruawahia to Kihikihi then and only then should Hamilton include these places in its own population figures.

Same goes for Palmy, including Foxton, Feilding is just not on.

I think one the urban areas meet up then naturally the smaller city will be included in the largers population- for instance Tauranga/Mt Maunganui.

Dont know who will win the battle when Hastings/Napier becomes a 'conurbation'. both cities can keep their respective names just like Minneapolis/St Paul.

Richard7666 · July 13th, 2009, 02:13 PM

Yeah Mt Maunganui is physically connected to Tauranga so is definately part of the same city. Same with Wellington and its cities. Nelson and Richmond I'm not really sure about.

And lol at Hamilton...there is no way in hell Te Awamutu or Cambridge are part of the same city. I wouldn't even consider Feilding part of Palmerston North. If it included Foxton though, Foxton should include Levin, Levin include Otaki, Otaki include Paraparaumu, which should include Paikakariki, which should include Porirua, which should include Wellington...and eventually Bluff (it can only go south, because anything much north would be part of Hamilton)

Richard7666 · July 13th, 2009, 02:26 PM

It's odd, looking at google maps, there is a lot of inconsistency between urban area and population...for a good example, Palmerston North is about the same size as Invercargill, while Whangerei appears to be about 60% the size.

If you want to see something REALLY weird though, check out Te Anau (pop 2k) vs Te Awamutu (pop 14k).

jarden · July 13th, 2009, 07:23 PM

1 Auckland 1,313,200
2 Christchurch 382,200
3 Wellington 381,900
4 Hamilton 197,300
5 Napier-Hastings 122,600
6 Tauranga 116,000
7 Dunedin 114,900
8 Palmerston North 79,800
9 Nelson 58,700
10 Rotorua 55,600
11 New Plymouth 51,300
12 Whangarei 51,100
13 Invercargill 48,000
14 Wanganui 39,700
15 Kapiti 39,200
16 Gisborne 33,700[/QUOTE]

Where did you get the Hamilton at 197,300 figure from?
The Statistics website only has 166,000 for its urban area.

whooodaman · July 14th, 2009, 11:09 AM

It is only a matter of time before Fielding and Palmy merge together with there respective councils anyway. Palmerston North gives Fielding millions of dollars for developments like Manfield Park in Fielding each year. They are in talks at the moment to find out what would be the best way for them to merge. Palmy would also take over the surrounding Manawatu area as well

Richard7666 · July 15th, 2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whooodaman

It is only a matter of time before Fielding and Palmy merge together with there respective councils anyway. Palmerston North gives Fielding millions of dollars for developments like Manfield Park in Fielding each year. They are in talks at the moment to find out what would be the best way for them to merge. Palmy would also take over the surrounding Manawatu area as well

So Palmerston North as a city coucil would cease to exist? I suppose the Manawatu is a small enough area for that to work.

Ironmanfood · July 21st, 2009, 06:38 AM

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/...-uk-fall-away/

Net migration positive again in June as departures to Australia and UK fall away (Update 2)

July 21st, 2009

New Zealand recorded positive net permanent and long-term (PLT) migration of 730 in June, compared to an outflow of 583 the same month a year ago, figures released by Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) show. (Update 2 includes NZ citizen, Indian, UK migration.)

There were 5,746 PLT arrivals in June, compared to 5,016 departures. This compared to 6,362 arrivals and 6,945 departures in June 2008 (falls of 9.7% and 27.8% respectively).

“The increase (in net PLT from June 2008) was mainly due to 1,900 fewer PLT departures, including 1,600 fewer departures to Australia and 400 fewer to the United Kingdom, Government Statistician Geoff Bascand said.

“There were also 200 more PLT arrivals of New Zealand citizens, while arrivals of non-New Zealand citizens decreased by 800,” Bascand said.

Seasonally adjusted, PLT migration in June was 1,740. This was down from 2,580 in May and 2,120 in April. From the seasonally adjusted figures, the trend in net PLT migration has been rising steadily from October 2008.

In the year ended June 2009, net PLT migration was 12,515. This was the highest June year since 22,008 in the year ended June 2004.

Net PLT migration from India was 327 in June, one higher than from the United Kingdom. However there were 1,107 arrivals from the UK compared to 401 from India. Over half of the arrivals from India this year have come on student visas, whereas migrants from the UK are more likely to come for work or residence.

Net PLT migration to Australia from New Zealand was 1,165 in June, compared to an exodus of almost 3,000 in June 2008. In the year ended June 2009, there were a net 28,676 departures to Australia compared to 31,923 the year before.

There were 1,726 New Zealand citizens who came back to the country permanently in June, up from 1,531 in 2008. The level of NZ citizen arrivals hit its highest level for a June month since 2003 (1,822). On the other side of this, permanent departures of New Zealand citizens (2,949) was its lowest for a June month since 2003 (2,785).

spotila · August 29th, 2009, 07:06 PM

August 30th 2009

4,324,629

slowly but surely

current world pop: 6,780,761,471

whizz_pat · August 30th, 2009, 12:57 PM

The more people in the country, the less of it you have to yourself. Same thing goes with the rest of the world.

NeilPryde1 · September 22nd, 2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

The more people in the country, the less of it you have to yourself. Same thing goes with the rest of the world.

Well true but if we had more people here than it would lift our wages and living standards higher.

But unfortunately we just don't have the geographical space to fit everyone here like Australia can. I was talking to a mate from Aussie last week and he was saying that Australia could fit 300 million at least given that most of Australia is all desert.

Richard7666 · September 22nd, 2009, 08:28 AM

LOL that's crazy ^

Australia has issues with water at only TWENTY-TWO million, there is no way you could fit 300 million comfortably. It's probably the least hospitable inhabited landmass on the planet.

Urbania · September 22nd, 2009, 01:57 PM

You might be interested in the latest figures from across the pond. Looks like Oz is going through a third-world style growth spurt...up 439,100 people in the 12 months to 31 March 2009.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orfeo

spotila · September 22nd, 2009, 11:28 PM

third world style, I like it

Blah · September 23rd, 2009, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbania

You might be interested in the latest figures from across the pond. Looks like Oz is going through a third-world style growth spurt...up 439,100 people in the 12 months to 31 March 2009.

Queensland has surpassed NZ in population. NZ is about 4.34.

metroman · September 23rd, 2009, 02:55 AM

They have also revised their the population over the next 30 years up from 28,000,000 to around 35,000,000.

Justme · September 23rd, 2009, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard7666

LOL that's crazy ^

Australia has issues with water at only TWENTY-TWO million, there is no way you could fit 300 million comfortably. It's probably the least hospitable inhabited landmass on the planet.

It probably could. Keep in mind that the whole East coast for at least 100km inland in many cases is habitable with good rainfall and that coast lasts for something like 3500km? That is a lot of area that is not desert.

OptomistOne · September 23rd, 2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard7666

LOL that's crazy ^

Australia has issues with water at only TWENTY-TWO million, there is no way you could fit 300 million comfortably. It's probably the least hospitable inhabited landmass on the planet.

300 million would be comparable with the current population of the United States - which is interesting because Australia and the continental US are roughly the same physical size.

Physical land to accommodate a population roughly (ok I know it's a bit more than this but you know what I mean) ten times its current size is a not really a problem with proper planning and minimum urban density limits. Water is always an issue but desalination - (nuclear fusion?) could produce the volumes easily - assuming large scale use by 2250 or whenever such a population was reached.

Never say never.....

metroman · September 23rd, 2009, 06:31 AM

With Australia now having the second highest population growth of any industrialized nation in the world what sort of effect will this have on New Zealand? Will more people immigrate or will New Zealand grow at a similar rate?

Urbania · September 23rd, 2009, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metroman

With Australia now having the second highest population growth of any industrialized nation in the world what sort of effect will this have on New Zealand? Will more people immigrate or will New Zealand grow at a similar rate?

It should have a positive effect on New Zealand's economy, which in turn could lead to greater population growth.

SYDNEY · September 23rd, 2009, 07:16 AM

Read that immigration to NZ is at it's highest for 6 years and emmigration out of NZ has slowed down a lot .. I can't find the article now, I think that it was in yesterday's paper.

July 13th, 2009, 02:26 PM	#323
Richard7666 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Invercargill Posts: 876 Likes (Received): 3	It's odd, looking at google maps, there is a lot of inconsistency between urban area and population...for a good example, Palmerston North is about the same size as Invercargill, while Whangerei appears to be about 60% the size. If you want to see something REALLY weird though, check out Te Anau (pop 2k) vs Te Awamutu (pop 14k). Last edited by Richard7666; July 13th, 2009 at 02:49 PM.

July 14th, 2009, 11:09 AM	#325
whooodaman Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Palmerston North Posts: 291 Likes (Received): 0	It is only a matter of time before Fielding and Palmy merge together with there respective councils anyway. Palmerston North gives Fielding millions of dollars for developments like Manfield Park in Fielding each year. They are in talks at the moment to find out what would be the best way for them to merge. Palmy would also take over the surrounding Manawatu area as well __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=p1K4gngXF0c

September 23rd, 2009, 07:16 AM	#340
SYDNEY NEW ZEALAND Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 23,922 Likes (Received): 756	Read that immigration to NZ is at it's highest for 6 years and emmigration out of NZ has slowed down a lot .. I can't find the article now, I think that it was in yesterday's paper. __________________ Connoisseur of Beauty AUCKLAND [FLICKR] AUCKLAND [PBASE] [EYE] ON AUCKLAND BLOG

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 13th, 2009, 11:30 AM	#321
Milan Luka stupid sexy flanders Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Out in the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 2,742 Likes (Received): 74	Just like Hamilton likes to add Te Awamutu, Cambridge to its figures. Hell why not add Auckland to really give your cities pop a boost. When the moment comes you can drive in a continuous urban area from Ngaruawahia to Kihikihi then and only then should Hamilton include these places in its own population figures. Same goes for Palmy, including Foxton, Feilding is just not on. I think one the urban areas meet up then naturally the smaller city will be included in the largers population- for instance Tauranga/Mt Maunganui. Dont know who will win the battle when Hastings/Napier becomes a 'conurbation'. both cities can keep their respective names just like Minneapolis/St Paul.

July 13th, 2009, 02:13 PM	#322
Richard7666 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Invercargill Posts: 876 Likes (Received): 3	Yeah Mt Maunganui is physically connected to Tauranga so is definately part of the same city. Same with Wellington and its cities. Nelson and Richmond I'm not really sure about. And lol at Hamilton...there is no way in hell Te Awamutu or Cambridge are part of the same city. I wouldn't even consider Feilding part of Palmerston North. If it included Foxton though, Foxton should include Levin, Levin include Otaki, Otaki include Paraparaumu, which should include Paikakariki, which should include Porirua, which should include Wellington...and eventually Bluff (it can only go south, because anything much north would be part of Hamilton)

July 13th, 2009, 07:23 PM	#324
jarden Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cairns and Christchurch Posts: 2,525 Likes (Received): 16	1 Auckland 1,313,200 2 Christchurch 382,200 3 Wellington 381,900 4 Hamilton 197,300 5 Napier-Hastings 122,600 6 Tauranga 116,000 7 Dunedin 114,900 8 Palmerston North 79,800 9 Nelson 58,700 10 Rotorua 55,600 11 New Plymouth 51,300 12 Whangarei 51,100 13 Invercargill 48,000 14 Wanganui 39,700 15 Kapiti 39,200 16 Gisborne 33,700[/QUOTE] Where did you get the Hamilton at 197,300 figure from? The Statistics website only has 166,000 for its urban area.

July 21st, 2009, 06:38 AM	#327
Ironmanfood Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 230 Likes (Received): 0	http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/...-uk-fall-away/ Net migration positive again in June as departures to Australia and UK fall away (Update 2) July 21st, 2009 New Zealand recorded positive net permanent and long-term (PLT) migration of 730 in June, compared to an outflow of 583 the same month a year ago, figures released by Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) show. (Update 2 includes NZ citizen, Indian, UK migration.) There were 5,746 PLT arrivals in June, compared to 5,016 departures. This compared to 6,362 arrivals and 6,945 departures in June 2008 (falls of 9.7% and 27.8% respectively). “The increase (in net PLT from June 2008) was mainly due to 1,900 fewer PLT departures, including 1,600 fewer departures to Australia and 400 fewer to the United Kingdom, Government Statistician Geoff Bascand said. “There were also 200 more PLT arrivals of New Zealand citizens, while arrivals of non-New Zealand citizens decreased by 800,” Bascand said. Seasonally adjusted, PLT migration in June was 1,740. This was down from 2,580 in May and 2,120 in April. From the seasonally adjusted figures, the trend in net PLT migration has been rising steadily from October 2008. In the year ended June 2009, net PLT migration was 12,515. This was the highest June year since 22,008 in the year ended June 2004. Net PLT migration from India was 327 in June, one higher than from the United Kingdom. However there were 1,107 arrivals from the UK compared to 401 from India. Over half of the arrivals from India this year have come on student visas, whereas migrants from the UK are more likely to come for work or residence. Net PLT migration to Australia from New Zealand was 1,165 in June, compared to an exodus of almost 3,000 in June 2008. In the year ended June 2009, there were a net 28,676 departures to Australia compared to 31,923 the year before. There were 1,726 New Zealand citizens who came back to the country permanently in June, up from 1,531 in 2008. The level of NZ citizen arrivals hit its highest level for a June month since 2003 (1,822). On the other side of this, permanent departures of New Zealand citizens (2,949) was its lowest for a June month since 2003 (2,785).

August 29th, 2009, 07:06 PM	#328
spotila SSC Mapper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,536 Likes (Received): 7	August 30th 2009 4,324,629 slowly but surely current world pop: 6,780,761,471

August 30th, 2009, 12:57 PM	#329
whizz_pat Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Auckland/Brisbane Posts: 1,225 Likes (Received): 1	The more people in the country, the less of it you have to yourself. Same thing goes with the rest of the world.

September 22nd, 2009, 08:28 AM	#331
Richard7666 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Invercargill Posts: 876 Likes (Received): 3	LOL that's crazy ^ Australia has issues with water at only TWENTY-TWO million, there is no way you could fit 300 million comfortably. It's probably the least hospitable inhabited landmass on the planet.

September 22nd, 2009, 11:28 PM	#333
spotila SSC Mapper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,536 Likes (Received): 7	third world style, I like it

September 23rd, 2009, 02:55 AM	#335
metroman metroman Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 1,361 Likes (Received): 0	They have also revised their the population over the next 30 years up from 28,000,000 to around 35,000,000.

September 23rd, 2009, 06:31 AM	#338
metroman metroman Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 1,361 Likes (Received): 0	With Australia now having the second highest population growth of any industrialized nation in the world what sort of effect will this have on New Zealand? Will more people immigrate or will New Zealand grow at a similar rate?