Section 1: Overview of Population Trends
New Zealand is a diverse country. It is diverse in its range of social and physical environments and in its degree of economic development. It is also diverse in the distribution and characteristics of its population.
The focus of this section is on population trends. This section considers current issues in light of past and expected future population trends. It explains the demographic drivers relevant to sustainable development.
The size of New Zealand's resident population is the result of a complex interrelationship between natural increase (excess of births over deaths) and net external migration (flows of residents and non-residents who migrate on a permanent basis).3 The contribution from natural increase equals the contribution from births less the contribution from deaths. The difference between the natural increase contribution and total population growth is the contribution from net migration. Figure 1 shows the relationship between natural increase and net external migration over the past 100 years. Natural increase has been the dominant element in population growth in that time. In half of the last 25 years, the contribution of net migration has been negative.
Figure 1: Population Change, Natural Increase and Net Migration, 1961-2001
1.1 Size and Structure
The 2001 Census counted 3,737,277 people usually living in New Zealand. In addition to this population, there were an estimated 50,000 New Zealand residents temporarily overseas at Census time, and 85,000 people who were not captured by Census data. The resident population was estimated at four million in April 2003.
Over the 20th century, the New Zealand population has moved from a youthful age structure with moderate fertility and high mortality, through a period of marriage boom and associated raised fertility, to a period of low fertility, low mortality and population ageing.
This transition shows a healthy demographic adjustment. The high fertility and high mortality of the 19th century resulted in a young population. High mortality is an undesirable feature in a population. That said, low mortality needs to be accompanied by low fertility to avoid explosive population growth. Low fertility and low mortality result in a stable though older population.
In 1901 half of the male population was under 23.5 years of age. Half the female population was under 21.6 years of age. By 2001 half of the male population was under 34.0 years of age compared with the female population, half of whom were under 35.6 years of age.
Figure 2: Age-Sex Pyramid, Usually Resident Population, 2001 Census
The age structures of the main ethnic groups in New Zealand show significant differences.4
Figure 3: Age-Sex Pyramid, European/Pākehā Population, 2001 Census
Figure 3 shows the age structure of the usually-resident European/Pākehā- population. As this group is 80 percent of the population, this structure has a similar shape to the total population. The pyramid shows the "baby blip" that occurred in the early 1990s. It also shows the baby boomers reaching middle age.
Figure 4: Age-Sex Pyramid, Māori Population, 2001 Census
Figure 4 shows the usually-resident Māori population and the relative youthfulness arising from its different population transition.
Figure 5: Age-Sex Pyramid, Pacific Population, 2001 Census
The usually-resident Pacific population pyramid, shown in Figure 5, has a similar shape to the pyramid for Māori. However, an even greater proportion of its population is in the younger age groups.
Figure 6: Age-Sex Pyramid, Asian Population, 2001 Census
Figure 6 is the usually-resident Asian population. The bulge around the 20 year age group reflects a high proportion of migrants and students.
The last century is notable for the period of rapid growth from the mid-1930s. Rapid growth was sustained for around three decades by a marriage boom, as more women had children at younger ages.
The marriage and child-bearing boom coincided with a drop in infant mortality. The cause of the latter was improvements in health care and social welfare. The result was much larger surviving cohorts.
Despite a falling fertility rate, the number of births continued to rise and the proportion of women without children was lower than either before or after this period. The number of women of childbearing age also increased.
This baby boom was largely restricted to the European/ Pākehā- population. Māori underwent a transition from high fertility and infant mortality to lower fertility and lower infant mortality. The Māori transition to lower fertility rates started later and the rate of change was much higher. To illustrate this, the official Total Fertility Rate (TFR)5 for Māori in 1962 exceeded 6.0. By 1999 it was around 2.6. Over the same period, the total population shifted from 4.2 to 2.0. In 1951 the non-Māori infant mortality rate was 23 per 1,000 live births, but for Māori it was 68 per 1,000.6 The current comparable figures are 6.0 for non-Māori and 8.0 for Māori.
The consequence of these differences is a younger Māori population which is ageing more rapidly than the population as a whole.
1.2 Fertility
Table 1 presents the TFR for a number of selected countries and regions.7 A TFR of 2.1 is the level of reproduction that replaces the population. Like most of the developed world, New Zealand's fertility rate has been at or below replacement for the best part of a quarter of a century. However, by international standards it remains relatively high, hovering just below replacement level at 2.0 births per woman in 2001. The United States has a total fertility rate similar to New Zealand's. New Zealand's higher fertility relative to most developed nations is the result of higher fertility for Māori and Pacific peoples. When these populations are excluded from calculations, New Zealand's total fertility rate matches Australia's.
Birth numbers are constrained by the size of the childbearing population. Fertility rates are the result of the number and spacing of births of the childbearing population. The number and spacing of births are in turn related to the age, sex and ethno-cultural composition of the population, as well as other factors.
The current trend is for the age of mothers giving birth to rise. The average age of New Zealand women having children in 2001 was 29.5 years. Those women who give birth have fewer children, and a growing proportion of women remain childless.
All these changes make a return to higher fertility unlikely.
Table 1: TFR of Selected Countries
| OECD |
|
| United States |
2.06 |
| New Zealand |
1.96 |
| Norway |
1.85 |
| Australia |
1.78 |
| Finland |
1.75 |
| Denmark |
1.75 |
| France |
1.71 |
| United Kingdom |
1.71 |
| Canada |
1.66 |
| Sweden |
1.52 |
| Japan |
1.44 |
| Germany |
1.36 |
| Greece |
1.32 |
| Italy |
1.22 |
| Spain |
1.15 |
| Other countries and regions |
|
| Less developed countries |
3.2 |
| More developed countries |
1.6 |
| Oceania |
2.4 |
| - Samoa |
3.7 |
| Europe and newly independent states |
1.5 |
| - Russia |
1.3 |
| North America |
2.0 |
| Asia |
2.7 |
| - China |
1.8 |
| - India |
3.2 |
| World |
3.2 |
Moreover, in the face of economic and social pressures, ethnic, immigrant and religious groups who traditionally have had higher fertility are shifting toward smaller families.
An immediate return to high fertility would aggravate issues associated with dependency rates, at least in the short to medium term, because these children would not enter the workforce for about 20 years.
Table 2 shows that the percentage of births in the European/Pākehā population is below its population share. The percentage of deaths for this group is higher than its share. This contrasts with other ethnic groups shown in the table.
Table 2: Percent of Births and Deaths by Ethnicity
| Ethnicity |
2001
Population |
1998-2001
Births8 |
1998-2001
Deaths9 |
| European/Pākehā |
2,871,432
(80.1%) |
162,504
(71.4%) |
91,326
(83.5%) |
| Māori |
526,281
(14.7%) |
63,295
(27.8%) |
10,104
(9.2%) |
| Pacific |
231,798
(6.5%) |
32,720
(14.4%) |
3,473
(3.2%) |
| Asian |
238,176
(6.6%) |
18,510
(8.1%) |
1,746
(1.6%) |
| Other |
24,993
(0.7%) |
2,546
(1.1%) |
280
(0.3%) |
Overall births still currently exceed deaths by about 28,000 per year. This margin - natural increase - will continue to be positive until the first generations with a below-replacement family size reach very old age. Deaths will then exceed births unless fertility rises. Natural decrease is expected to become the norm from about 2035.
At the regional level, the effects of lower fertility levels are already being felt. Although many regions have historically lost people through migration, losses have been offset through natural population increase. Between 1991 and 2001, New Zealand's natural increase slowed by three percent. Between 2001 and 2010, natural increase is projected to decline by 26 percent. By 2021, it will be 34 percent lower than today. This will exacerbate population decline in some regions.
Figure 7: Births and Deaths, 1901-2051
Figure 7 shows the relationship between births and deaths over the 150-year period from 1901.
Table 3: Selected Measures of Mortality
| |
Death Rate |
Infant Mortality |
Life Expectancy10 |
| 2000 |
1971 |
2000 |
1971 |
Male |
Female |
| European/Pākehā |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
75 81 |
| Māori |
8.2 |
16.1 |
7.8 |
26.5 |
67 |
72 |
| Pacific |
- |
- |
- |
- |
70 |
76 |
| Asian |
- |
- |
- |
- |
78 |
83 |
| Total |
4.8 |
8.6 |
6.1 |
16.5 |
76 |
81 |
1.3 Mortality
The least volatile component of population change is mortality. The timing and cause of a person's death are usually a consequence of their genes and their accumulated lifetime experiences. A sedentary life of smoking and poor diet increases the likelihood of later cancer, heart disease or stroke. Consequences of events or experiences early in one's life, such as childhood illness, accidents and stress, can weaken the body, becoming apparent later in life. Experience of deprivation during the 1930s Depression is, for example, still affecting population health today.
As shown in Table 3, there has been a significant decline in rates of mortality in New Zealand in recent decades.
Life expectancy rose dramatically in New Zealand last century. Males could expect to live 17 years longer at the end of the century than at the beginning. Females could expect 20 years more life. The rises are due to advances in standards of living, health, nutrition, medical care and safety.
A key contributor to improved life expectancy has been reductions in infant mortality. Infant mortality fell from 76 per 1,000 in the early 1900s to 40 per 1,000 in the 1930s. By the 1950s, the infant mortality rate had fallen to 23 per 1,000. More recently it has fallen to below seven per 1,000.
While more lives were being saved at younger ages, increases in life expectancy later in life did not keep pace. Life expectancy at age 60 years improved by one year between 1880-1882 and 1921-1922. It then remained virtually unchanged for the next half century.
During the past 25 years, a major part of longevity improvement has occurred at retirement ages.
Today, only one in 200 children dies in their first year of life. Infant mortality has fallen to such a level that further declines cannot dramatically improve life expectancy. Over 90 percent of newborn babies will see their 60th birthday and 20 percent of babies can now expect to see their 90th birthday, three times the proportion that would have seen this milestone 50 years ago.
1.4 External Migration
External migration is the most volatile component of population change. It consists of both outflows from and inflows to New Zealand. Over the course of the last century, New Zealand gained an average of 5,000 people a year net from migration. The average net gain from natural increase over the same period was 25,000 per year.
The biggest changes in migration, especially in recent years, have been the major fluctuations in the gross flows to and from source and destination countries, and in the age of migrants. Over the past two decades, the international movement of people who are not intending to move permanently has increased dramatically.
The number of New Zealanders leaving the country on a self-declared "Permanent or Long-term" basis has increased steadily since the early 1990s. But the extent of this loss has been masked by high immigration. For instance, in the year to June 2001, there was a net loss of 41,000 New Zealand citizens. However, combined with a net gain of 31,000 non-New Zealanders, the overall net loss was only 10,000 people.
Figure 8 shows that for the past two decades there have been ongoing losses of New Zealand citizens. More New Zealanders have been leaving than returning every year since the early 1960s. The new phenomenon of the 1990s has been the substantial increase in gains of other nationalities.
The 2001 Census shows ongoing gains in overseas-born people and a net loss of New Zealand-born people. The net effect of the loss of New Zealand-born people and gains from the rest of the world is high population "turnover". Turnover is particularly significant in the working-age group. As a consequence of high turnover, in 2001 one in five of our working-age population was overseas born. The proportion in Auckland was one in three.11 These figures compare with one in four in Australia, and one in five in Canada. In the US the figure is one in 10, and in the UK one in 20.12
The 2001 Census found nearly 230 countries represented among the birthplaces of people who usually live in New Zealand. More than 50 of these countries contributed more than 1,000 people. It is probable that the majority of our migrants will continue to come from Australia, the United Kingdom and the Pacific, and the new sources of growth such as China, India and Southeast Asia. But more migrants are also arriving from wider areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
An important issue related to external migration is where in New Zealand people choose to settle. A second important issue is how well they integrate into their new society and economy. These issues are discussed in Section 2.2.
Figure 8: Net Permanent or Long-term Migration by Nationality
1.5 Internal Migration
Changes in the distribution of population around New Zealand are determined by movements between areas, arrivals and departures from overseas, and different fertility and mortality rates. Each area of New Zealand has a different demographic structure.
New Zealanders are very mobile and becoming more so over time. More than half of the population change address in any five-year period.
The South Island has made small population gains from North Islanders in each of the 1991, 1996 and 2001 Censuses. But movements within each island are much larger than movements between islands.
Table 4 shows movements of people within New Zealand based on regional council areas. In some cases, such as the Nelson region, over 20 percent of the population moved out to another region during the five-year period between 1996 and 2001. More than 20 percent of the current population are recent arrivals in the area. The impact of migration on regions is actually greater than shown in the table. This is because the data does not include people who chose to move out of New Zealand rather than to another region.
Many factors determine the intensity of the migration impact. Different demographic profiles of those arriving (inflows) compared with those leaving (outflows) may significantly impact on population profiles. For example, people leaving the Auckland and Wellington regions tend to be older than those arriving (Figure 9).
Canterbury and Southland are both heavily dependent on the rural sector. Patterns of internal migration into Canterbury are similar to those in Auckland and Wellington. But there is a marked contrast in the ages of those migrating (Figure 10). The peaks of Canterbury and Southland inflows are younger than those of either Auckland or Wellington. The outflows are also younger. Outflows from Southland mirror the inflows of the other three regions. Unlike those in the other three regions, the inflows from Southland occur across the age range.
Variation in international outward migration flows between regions has an impact over time on regional populations.
Table 4: Impact of Inter-Regional Migration, 2001 Census For Comparability
| Regional Council area |
Gained from other regions 1996-2001 |
Lost to other regions 1996-2001 |
Percent of population 5yrs and over in a different region in 1996 |
Percent of 1996 population lost to other regions |
Percent of 2001 population who were overseas in 1996 |
| Northland region |
17,487 |
18,106 |
13.5 |
13.2 |
3.3 |
| Auckland region |
65,602 |
67,967 |
6.1 |
6.4 |
11.3 |
| Waikato region |
44,046 |
42,588 |
13.3 |
12.2 |
4.3 |
| Bay of Plenty region |
34,827 |
26,262 |
15.8 |
11.7 |
4.0 |
| Gisborne region |
4,838 |
7,509 |
12.1 |
16.4 |
2.3 |
| Hawke's Bay region |
14,578 |
16,708 |
11.0 |
11.7 |
3.6 |
| Taranaki region |
8,637 |
12,297 |
9.0 |
11.5 |
2.8 |
| Manawatu-Wanganui region |
25,807 |
32,042 |
12.6 |
14.0 |
3.3 |
| Wellington region |
39,234 |
37,087 |
10.0 |
9.0 |
6.2 |
| Tasman region |
8,082 |
5,532 |
21.0 |
14.6 |
3.7 |
| Nelson region |
8,411 |
8,315 |
21.6 |
20.6 |
4.8 |
| Marlborough region |
6,738 |
6,163 |
18.2 |
16.1 |
3.1 |
| West Coast region |
3,751 |
5,913 |
13.2 |
18.2 |
2.3 |
| Canterbury region |
38,907 |
30,248 |
8.6 |
6.5 |
5.2 |
| Otago region |
21,745 |
20,641 |
12.7 |
11.2 |
4.6 |
| Southland region |
6,699 |
12,129 |
7.9 |
12.5 |
2.0 |
Figure 9: Inter-Regional Inflows and Outflows, Auckland and Wellington Regions, 1996-2001
→ Full size version of Figure 9 [10KB GIF]
Figure 10: Inter-Regional Inflows and Outflows, Canterbury and Southland Regions, 1996-2001
→ Full size version of Figure 10 [10KB GIF]
Figure 11: Percentage of People Born in New Zealand in Selected Ethnic Groupings by Selected Age Groups, 2001 Census
In the 1986-1991 period, 53 percent of inward migrants to Auckland were from overseas, rising to 62 percent over the 1991-1996 period. Of all migrants leaving Auckland, 51 percent headed overseas in the 1986-1991 period, falling to 44 percent in the 1991-1996 period. The Auckland region had the lowest inter-regional migration turnover rate of all regions between 1986 and 1996.
1.6 Ethnicity
Ethnicity data in New Zealand is based on the principle of individual self-identification. Self-identification is the most practical way of collecting this information. In general, ethnicity questions in New Zealand draw high responses.14
People associate ethnicity not only with cultural affiliation, but also with such factors as nationality, ancestry, country of birth and country of current residence. The exact mix of these influences is not discernible from the data. Younger people also tend to declare multiple ethnicities more often than older people.
Ethnic groups vary in age structure, geographic distribution, fertility rates and a host of other ways. These variations impact on their educational and workforce profile, patterns of internal migration, and specific social and economic needs.
Looking at aggregated ethnic groups conceals both diversity within groups and similarities between individuals or subgroups of different aggregate groups. Generalisations about particular ethnic groups should be made with caution. For example, within the broad Asian ethnic group, there are people of various East, Central, South and Southeast Asian ethnicities who have widely differing cultures.
In addition, ethnic groups differ by proportion of those New Zealand born by age. Figure 11 shows that nearly six in 10 of the Pacific peoples in New Zealand are New Zealand born. For those under 15 years of age this proportion exceeds eight in 10 people. For people of Asian ethnicities, just over one in five is New Zealand born. Among under-15 year olds, nearly two in five are born in this country.
One of the striking recent trends in ethnicity in New Zealand is the growing proportion of people who report multiple ethnicities. In the 2001 Census nearly one third of a million New Zealanders identified with more than one ethnic group. For example, of the 526,821 people of Māori ethnicity reported in the 2001 Census, 44 percent also declared at least one other ethnicity. There were 212,886 people who described themselves as European/Pākehā- and Māori, 31,545 Māori and Pacific, and 7,233 Māori and Asian.
1.7 Future Trends
Projections
The population projections presented in this section are Statistics New Zealand's Series 4 projections. They are based on historical data up to 1999 and medium assumptions of fertility, mortality and net migration of 5,000 per year.15
The population projections are plausible scenarios, not best judgement forecasts. Projections based on different assumptions provide an indication of the sensitivity of population developments to the prime determinants of population change. But they provide little information on the true range of potential outcomes or the chances that different outcomes might eventuate.
Determinants of future population developments are complex. Error margins on projections can be high. For example, few demographers in the 1930s predicted the rapid rise in birth rates that would take place in the 1940s. As noted by Peter Drucker, "…in the late 1930s, President Roosevelt's Commission on American Population (consisting of the country's most eminent demographers and statisticians) confidently predicted that America's population would peak in 1945 and would then start declining".16
History provides insights into the relative importance of components of population change. Table 5 presents decade averages of contributions to annual population growth from births, deaths and migration. The reduction in population growth rates in New Zealand from the 1950s to the 1980s came from a one percentage point fall in the contribution from births. This was compounded by a 0.75 percentage point decline in the net migration contribution but was partially offset by a 0.1 percentage point reduction in the negative contribution from deaths. The increase in population growth in the 1990s was almost entirely driven by the turnaround in migration trends.
Variability measures provide an indication of the relative difficulty in forecasting components of population growth. The inter-decade variability measures provided in Table 5 show that birth rates vary more than death rates. Forecasting births is thus harder than predicting deaths. The high variability in net migration figures is compounded by the complexity of issues that influence individual migration decisions.
If New Zealand's fertility rate were to drop to that currently experienced by Italy and Spain (around 1.2 births per woman), stable zero-growth population would require an average annual net migration gain of 52,000 people. With net migration at this level the ultimate population size would settle at around 6.5 million people. This scenario is extremely unlikely. Net migration at this level implies gross inflows considerably greater than New Zealand has ever experienced.
For the New Zealand population to reach 10 million by 2050, there would need to be a net gain of 88,000 migrants every year for the next 50 years.17 Given increasing international competition for skilled migrants and the problems we have had in successfully integrating the current number of migrants, it seems extremely unlikely that the New Zealand population will increase to 10 million over the next 50 years.18
At the other extreme, if we were to suffer net losses due to migration at an average of 17,000 per year, long-term stable zero-growth population would require a fertility level of 2.6 births per woman, a level unlikely to be achieved. In this extreme, the ultimate population size would settle at around four million.
Table 5: Contributions to New Zealand Population Growth
| Decade averages |
Births |
Deaths |
Natural Increase |
Net Migration |
Total Change |
| 1950-1959 |
2.60% |
-0.92% |
1.68% |
0.52% |
2.20% |
| 1960-1969 |
2.42% |
-0.88% |
1.54% |
0.24% |
1.78% |
| 1970-1979 |
1.93% |
-0.84% |
1.10% |
0.06% |
1.15% |
| 1980-1989 |
1.63% |
-0.82% |
0.81% |
-0.23% |
0.58% |
| 1990-1999 |
1.64% |
-0.77% |
0.86% |
0.43% |
1.29% |
| 1950-1999 average |
2.04% |
-0.85% |
1.20% |
0.20% |
1.40% |
| Inter-decade variability standard deviation |
0.45% |
0.06% |
0.39% |
0.30% |
0.62% |
| Coefficient of Variation |
21.84% |
6.66% |
32.80% |
148.77% |
44.02% |
Source: Data derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Database.
The conditions for zero population growth in New Zealand over the next century, based on different fertility rates and net migration, are shown in Figure 12.19 The combination of a fertility rate of 1.85 and annual net migration of 10,000 is marked with a cross. Figure 12 shows that if, for example, the fertility rate fell to 1.65 then zero population growth would require annual net migration of 20,000.
The combinations of fertility and migration that produce zero population growth in the short term will, over time, affect population size. For example, if zero population growth is achieved today through a fertility rate of 1.85 and annual net migration of 10,000, then the population would be 4.8 million in 2100. On the other hand, if zero growth is achieved through a fertility rate of 1.4 and annual net migration of 36,000, then the population would rise to six million.
In summary, a low fertility rate is clearly not going to produce higher population growth, but it will not restrict population size to its lowest possible level either, because of the potential influence of migration.
Size and Composition of Projected Population
The resident population may not reach five million in the next 50 years. It may never do so. The New Zealand population is projected to grow to 4.4 million by 2021, to 4.6 million by 2051 and to fall back slightly to 4.2 million by 2101.
Over the next century the population will reach a new stable age structure and a much higher median age.
During the past 50 years the number of New Zealanders aged 65 years and over has more than doubled. The 65+ age group is projected to more than double again over the next half century - from 0.45 million in 1999 to 1.18 million in 2051. By then, this group is expected to make up one in four of the nation's population, up from 12 percent in 1999. At the same time, the concept of retirement age is becoming anachronistic. People retire at a much wider variety of ages than in the past.
By 2051, half of all New Zealanders will be over the age of 45 years, compared with 34 years in 1999. In 1999, children under 15 years of age comprised 23 percent of the population - by 2051 they are expected to account for around 16 percent. Over this same period their number is projected to decrease from 875,000 in 1999 to 737,000 in 2051, a drop of 138,000. Thus there will be nearly 16 percent fewer children.
This phenomenon has consequences for the education sector. While numbers in the various educational age groups are projected to fluctuate in the future, there will be a general downward trend in all groups.
Over the next two decades the primary school age population (5-12 years) is forecast to drop by 67,000, or 14 percent, to 410,000 in 2021. This compares with a peak of 503,000 reached in 1975. In most of the decades after 2031, there will be further drops. There could be 84,000 fewer primary school children in 2051 than in 1999.
The trend in the secondary school age population (13-17 years) is similar to that for primary schools. The peaks and troughs for secondary schools lag behind those of the primary schools by about six years. The secondary school age population is projected to increase from 272,000 in 1999 to 315,000 in 2007, an increase of 43,000. The number will then drop by 50,000 to 265,000 in 2027. By 2051, the secondary school age population will number 261,000. This is about 62,000 fewer than the 1976 peak.
The patterns in the tertiary age population (taken here as 18- 22 years) trail those of secondary schools by about five years. During the decade ending in 2011, there will be an increase of 47,000, followed by drops of 23,000 and 26,000 in the next two decades and smaller changes thereafter. By 2051, there will be 270,000 people aged 18-22 years, almost back to the 1999 figure of 266,000.
The cohorts moving into retirement ages over the next couple of decades were born to younger mothers than subsequent cohorts. With increases in life expectancy there may be two or more living generations in the retirement ages. For instance, a woman currently aged 50 may have a living mother and grandmother. However, in the medium term this will change as the age differential between children and their mothers increases. A child at high school may have parents reaching retirement age. Parents may require care before the child's tertiary education is complete.
As these large cohorts of recent decades proceed through the older ages, there will be a sharp increase in deaths. Moreover, the number of deaths is expected to exceed the number of births by around 2035 and to continue to do so. This is the result of the large cohorts born in the 1960s and 1970s reaching old age, and the childbearing cohorts at that time being much smaller and having lower fertility. The population will also be much older. It is estimated there will be 12,000 people aged 100 years or more by 2051, compared with around 300 in 1996.
Figure 12: Conditions for Zero Population Growth in New Zealand
Back to Top