Net migration gain hits lowest level in over two years
A dwindling number of migrant arrivals and rising number of long-term departures has resulted in the smallest net migration gain in more than two years.
Stats NZ data showed a net gain of 26,400 for the year ended March, barely a quarter of the level in the previous March year, and the lowest annual gain since the end of 2022.
"The fall in net migration in the March 2025 year was mainly due to fewer migrant arrivals, although departures also rose to a provisional annual record," international migration statistics spokesperson Sarah Drake said.
Provisionally, there were 149,600 migrant arrivals and 123,300 migrant departures in the year to March, compared with 207,100 migrant arrivals and 106,700 migrant departures in the March 2024 year.
There was a record loss of around 70,000 New Zealanders during the year, driven by the 18-30 year age group, with two thirds of all departures headed to Australia.
"Easing arrivals and strengthening departures of non-NZ citizens and sizeable net departures of NZ citizens reflect the relatively weak position of the New Zealand economy," ASB senior economist Mark Smith said.
"There is a strong case for reducing monetary policy restraint. We expect a 25 basis point official cash rate cut in May, with further cuts conditional on the outlook."
Tourism soft
Stats NZ said visitor numbers fell in the month of March, but gained more than 1% in the first quarter, although were still down more than 8% on a year ago.
Overseas tourist numbers were 3.3 million for the past year, about 15% below pre-Covid levels, with fewer arriving from Australia, Europe and North America, but a modest lift in Chinese tourists.
Economics consultancy Infometrics said slower economic growth for major trading partners may weigh on the strength of the tourism recovery.
"The recent de-escalation in the trade war between the US and China reduces the some of the downside risks to future arrival numbers from our second and third largest tourism markets," said economist Matthew Allman.
Several tourism industry gatherings in recent weeks have highlighted the need to improve the offering to attract overseas visitors, especially from China.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
NCEA Reform Presents Opportunity For Hospitality
Hospitality New Zealand (Hospitality NZ) acknowledges the Government's proposal to replace the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) with a new set of national qualifications. Alongside a number of changes - including NCEA levels 1, 2 and 3 being replaced - the Government's proposal includes a commitment to work with industry to develop better vocational pathways so students are getting the skills relevant to certain career pathways. Steve Armitage, Hospitality NZ Chief Executive, says: 'We're pleased to see that the Government is considering changes that have the potential to improve vocational pathways, and support hospitality becoming an industry of choice. 'We're particularly encouraged by the Government's commitment to working with industry to design coherent vocational learning packages. This could ensure that hospitality standards reflect the skills and professionalism our sector requires, while giving students a clear pathway from school into hospo careers.' 'We know hospitality offers rewarding career opportunities for those who join our industry, and national qualifications need to be structured in a coherent way that enables a student to build on their hospitality experience before leaving school. 'A nationally consistent hospitality pathway will also support workforce development by providing a clearer pipeline of local talent. This will make it easier for more New Zealanders to gain the skills they need for hospitality careers, while gradually reducing our industry's reliance on migrant workers.' 'We look forward to contributing to the review process, and working with the Government to ensure a stronger connection between the standards offered and the skills required in the workplace.' About Hospitality NZ: Hospitality New Zealand represents more than 2,500 hospitality and accommodation businesses across Aotearoa, supporting world-class manaakitanga (hospitality). Our members span the food and beverage, accommodation, entertainment, tourism, and hospitality service sectors. We provide our members with the tools, resources, partnerships and knowledge they need to succeed. We advocate to ensure the industry's voice is heard in government, shaping policies for a sustainable future. To find out more visit
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Papa forecasts $13m deficit, downgrades visitor targets
'Te Papa does not generate enough funding to cover required capital investments to maintain Te Papa's building and experience assets [...] to manage inflationary costs, we will be examining ways to deliver our services as efficiently as possible in line with the legislated functions set out in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992.' As a Crown Entity, it receives $44 million in funding each year from the Government and must raise at least $30 million on top of that to stay afloat, made up of partnerships, philanthropy and donations, and its commercial activities like corporate functions. 'Te Papa's commercial revenue is impacted by the current economic conditions, with the most significant commercial revenue stream, corporate functions also being impacted by the reduction in Public Sector spend.' Te Papa, the Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, viewed from Lambton Harbour. Photo / Mark Mitchell Before accounting for depreciation of its assets, the museum recorded a surplus of $1.98m, saying the fact the Government does not fund Te Papa for depreciation is why it has observed such losses. Te Papa spokeswoman Kate Camp said the entity 'has a large number of fixed costs with large, specialised buildings, and collections that require expert care and housing'. 'Some Crown agencies are funded for depreciation, but Te Papa is not,' Camp said. Kate Camp. Photo / Ebony Lamb Camp said the slow recovery in the tourism sector has seen the museum take a hit, with the market being at only about 85% of where it was pre-Covid. 'New revenue streams will come from building on existing offerings like guided tours and paid-for exhibitions.' It is considering charging for more experiences, Camp said, but maintained entry to Te Papa will always remain free for New Zealanders. As for whether the entity would be seeking further Government funding to support its financial recovery, Camp said they are 'always involved in active dialogue with our monitoring agency (Ministry for Culture and Heritage) about what we deliver and the resources required'. Te Papa says maintenance and depreciation of its large, specialised buildings are responsible for its financial struggles. Photo / Mark Mitchell It comes a year after Te Papa first announced it was introducing a $35 international visitor fee, citing the increased cost of energy, insurance and staffing. The charge was implemented in September last year and reportedly brought in $750,000 in its first two months. Camp said the new fee is delivering in line with targets and is projected to raise approximately $3m over the first 12 months. The museum is hoping for a 3% increase in international visitor entry, citing growth from international markets as a 'new focus' for the organisation. Board Chair Chris Swasbrook said Te Papa earns almost half its annual income itself and has a 'continual focus on achieving operating efficiencies for the taxpayer'. Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Paul Goldsmith holds the responsibility for Te Papa and said the museum's finances are an 'operational matter', but noted the Government 'expects all its entities to operate as efficiently and effectively as any other private business'. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith at Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell While the museum's financials paint a less than rosy picture, it continues to perform well in visitor satisfaction with more than 97% of adult visitors reporting being 'satisfied' to 'extremely satisfied' for overall museum experience during their visit in the last financial year. Last month it was announced as the number one tourist attraction in New Zealand for the second year running and was named in the top 1% 'Best of the Best attractions worldwide' by Trip Advisor. The tourism sector continues to struggle post-Covid, with the latest International Visitor Survey showing spending by international tourists had jumped 9.2% in the last year to $12.2 billion but still remains below pre-Covid levels. In Wellington specifically, the sector contributed $862.9m towards the capital city's GDP in 2024, making up 2.5% of Wellington's economic output, Infometrics data shows. In 2000, that number was 3.2%. Tourism hasn't grown as a sector in Wellington at the same level of other centres, with the economic output in Wellington City's tourism sector increasing by only 2.2% in 2024, compared with an increase of 10.2% for New Zealand as a whole. Ethan Manera is a New Zealand Herald journalist based in Wellington. He joined NZME in 2023 as a broadcast journalist with Newstalk ZB and is interested in local issues, politics, and property in the capital. He can be emailed at
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
