Chasing higher pay and a brighter future, record numbers abandon NZ for Australia
The Aussie exodus is fuelling fears of a hollowing-out at home – but not everyone agrees that alarm is warranted, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin.
New Zealand is losing people at a pace not seen in years. In the 12 months to March 2025, a provisional record of 70,000 New Zealand citizens left the country, according to new figures from Stats NZ, with around two-thirds heading to Australia. The net migration gain was just 26,400 – barely a quarter of last year's figure – reflecting not only fewer arrivals but a steady stream of departures.
Many are being drawn across the Tasman by better job prospects and significantly higher pay. Australians, on average, earn 33% more than New Zealanders, and in sectors like healthcare, trades and mining, the gap is even more stark. Some nurses, for instance, are earning nearly double what they were paid in New Zealand, and engineers just out of university like Zach Coventry, who was interviewed in The Post last October (paywalled), are stepping straight into six-figure salaries.
The Guardian's migration story goes viral
Published last week, Michelle Duff's in-depth feature for The Guardian on the exodus to Australia has clearly hit a nerve, becoming a viral talking point both here and abroad. It painted a vivid picture of families, young workers and retirees leaving behind lives they thought they'd never abandon, motivated not by dreams of adventure but the hard maths of household budgeting. 'That Australian income just flipped the switch for us,' said one woman now living in Western Australia.
The Economist (paywalled) covered the topic in March, noting that adjusted for purchasing power, Australia's per capita GDP is about a third higher than New Zealand's. While that's long been true, what's changed is the breadth of the departures: no longer just 20-somethings chasing an OE, but now their parents, children and grandparents too. 'We talk about where the 'centre of gravity' for a family is, and if you've got parents, grandchildren or adult children living elsewhere, you're relocating your centre of gravity,' Massey sociologist Paul Spoonley told The Guardian.
A brain drain, or business as usual?
While the headlines scream brain drain, economists and demographers are more cautious. Speaking to The Post's Luke Malpass (paywalled), BNZ economist Stephen Toplis calls the notion of a mass loss of top talent 'a bit of a fallacy', arguing that many high-skilled workers are still arriving from overseas. NZIER's Peter Wilson is less sanguine. He says the impact on NZ appears net-negative, pointing to evidence that New Zealanders in Australia are on average higher-earners than their local peers, suggesting that it's not those who couldn't get a job who are leaving, but those 'chasing higher wages, better conditions, and a stronger economy', Malpass writes.
Meanwhile, a recent Ministry of Education report found that 6% of the highest-performing NCEA students from 2023 went overseas, a record high, though it's unclear how many are enrolled in foreign universities or will return. Chris Whelan of Universities New Zealand suggests the spike may be temporary, driven by post-pandemic wanderlust, but warns that if it becomes permanent, New Zealand's tertiary sector could suffer.
Perth, Brisbane and the promise of a better life
For many New Zealanders making the leap, the choice of destination is clear. Queensland, with its warm weather and job-rich economy, is the top pick – one third of all New Zealanders who moved to Australia in early 2024 settled there. Victoria was next, followed by New South Wales and Western Australia. Perth, in particular, is booming for those in mining and trades, while Brisbane's sunny lifestyle and affordable transport are big draws.
However, the affordability edge may not be what it seems. While salaries are higher in Australia, so too are many living costs – especially housing. Writes The Post: 'Across the board, houses are now comparatively more affordable in city centres like Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, than their direct counterparts in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (though if you were moving from Auckland to Brisbane, you would be better off).' Yet the economic benefits are undeniable. As one migrant told The Guardian, 'We're putting $1,000 away a fortnight and we enjoy our life, we're not scraping by or wondering what the grocery bill is.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Gold standard: fast-track mining project must pass environmental audit
Comment: There's been a great deal of noise about the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. Widely panned for lowering environmental standards, here's how it might roll for one big project. Though the scale of this gold mine is very large, the process will be very similar for all substantive applications under the act. The Clutha River runs south through the Tarras Valley into Lake Dunstan near Cromwell. It's a wine and fruit-growing area boarded to the east by Bendigo Station, part of the South Island high country, notable for its wild, undeveloped landscapes. In those hills lies the site of the proposed Santana Minerals Ltd Bendigo Ophir project, an open-cast gold mine. Santana is an Australian company. The mine's open pit would be very large and deep. Some underground extraction is also proposed. A tailings pond would store toxic processing waste on site behind a dam. For ever. Santana says it will be lodging its formal application this month for various consents under the fast-track process. These will include approvals under the Resource Management Act and under various conservation laws. The process is complicated and fast. Before even lodging its application, Santana must consult with entities listed in the act, including relevant local councils and iwi and hapū. That must be meaningful, which the Environmental Defence Society considers requires Santana to provide a full draft of its assessment of environmental effects. It can then apply to the Environmental Protection Authority, which must publish the application without delay on the fast-track website. At this point the authority undertakes a 'completeness' assessment. Inadequate consultation or incomplete technical assessments would render an application incomplete and therefore should be returned to the applicant. If complete, the authority passes the application to the Panel Convenors to set up an expert panel. The panel then takes over the process and acts independently from the Environmental Protection Authority. It has broad discretion over how the application is considered and who will be heard. The Environmental Defence Society considers itself an affected party with respect to Santana's application given that it represents a relevant aspect of the public interest and has independent technical evidence to bring to bear. Key local community groups may also be heard. Given the scale and complexity of Santana's project, and its highly sensitive ecological and landscape location, EDS expects that the panel would opt to hold a formal hearing with expert witnesses, cross-examination and expert conferencing. It should also commission its own independent peer reviews of key aspects of the proposal. Each procedural decision made by the authority, panel convenors and panels, including the completeness assessment, the membership of the panel and who the panel asks to provide feedback, can be judicially reviewed in the High Court if there are valid grounds. The key statutory test that the panel will undertake boils down to a proportionality assessment set out in section 85 of the act: are the adverse impacts of the mine sufficiently significant to be out of proportion to the project's regional or national benefits? It's novel wording, and the way it is interpreted by panels will undoubtedly be tested by the courts on appeal or review or both. The starting point therefore requires an economic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of environmental effects. No fast-track application should pass the completeness test without both included. An economic analysis is quite different from an assessment of the financial returns of a project. And under the act, those benefits must be found in New Zealand, not overseas. The Environmental Defence Society engaged the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research to advise which questions should be addressed in Santana's economic analysis. Based on its advice, the list includes: What are the direct and indirect economics impacts of the project on the local, regional and national economy? What is the method used for the analysis? What are the GDP, consumer spending, and employment impacts? How will the workforce requirements of the project affect Central Otago, considering direct and indirect workers? Where will they be sourced? What are the expected impacts on businesses, wages, housing, infrastructure, healthcare, schools, and recreational amenities in Central Otago? What are the competitive advantages of the project that make it the 'lowest cost gold mine' in Australasia, in comparison with other gold mines or a 'typical' Australasian gold mine? What potential changes might Santana make to the project if projected profits fall to levels indicated in the sensitivity analysis, such as below $1 billion or below $500 million? What are the economic valuations of the various environmental impacts (terrestrial ecology, freshwater ecology, freshwater availability, landscape, etc)? How has the assessment accounted for the project's end-of-life costs? What activities will be entailed in finishing the project, restoration and leaving the area? If Santana were required to set aside a substantial contingency fund or long-term bond to fund long-term restoration of the site, what would be the effect on the economics of the project? Specifically, what would be the effect of a substantial bond on total profits, the benefit-cost ratio, and the net benefit? The second part of the assessment relates to environmental impacts. Santana's published material about the project lists some of its likely and potential impacts. The matters needing focused expert evidence include: Mine design: has the pond and tailings dam design been peer reviewed by an independent international expert (common practice offshore)? has the pond and tailings dam design been peer reviewed by an independent international expert (common practice offshore)? Terrestrial ecology: what indigenous plant and animal species inhabit the project site and are any threatened or at-risk; what habitats are located within the site and are any of significance; how will the RMA hierarchy (avoid, remedy, mitigate etc) be applied; are consents required to destroy protected wildlife; and what is the overall significance of the impacts on the ecological values in a regional and national context? what indigenous plant and animal species inhabit the project site and are any threatened or at-risk; what habitats are located within the site and are any of significance; how will the RMA hierarchy (avoid, remedy, mitigate etc) be applied; are consents required to destroy protected wildlife; and what is the overall significance of the impacts on the ecological values in a regional and national context? Freshwater ecology (including streams, wetlands and aquifers ): what is the baseline state for freshwater health on, around and downstream of the site; what impacts are there on freshwater ecology and how will they be addressed; how will leakage from the tailings dam (if any) be prevented; and what effects cannot be avoided? ): what is the baseline state for freshwater health on, around and downstream of the site; what impacts are there on freshwater ecology and how will they be addressed; how will leakage from the tailings dam (if any) be prevented; and what effects cannot be avoided? Environmental hydrology and geochemistry: what will be the impact on ecosystems and groundwater users from groundwater drawdown related to the open pit and mine dewatering? what will be the impact on ecosystems and groundwater users from groundwater drawdown related to the open pit and mine dewatering? Water use: what volumes of takes are required; where will the abstraction come from; what effects will that have on existing users and ecosystems; where will discharges be made; what are the chemical parameters of the discharges? what volumes of takes are required; where will the abstraction come from; what effects will that have on existing users and ecosystems; where will discharges be made; what are the chemical parameters of the discharges? Landscape: what are the landscape values of the site; what are the likely effects; are any effects unable to be avoided; will there be remote view impacts; what about light impacts offsite and night; and are simulations provided? what are the landscape values of the site; what are the likely effects; are any effects unable to be avoided; will there be remote view impacts; what about light impacts offsite and night; and are simulations provided? Cultural and heritage: what are the impacts and are they positive or negative? what are the impacts and are they positive or negative? Local effects: what are the traffic, noise, dust, recreational use, amenity and energy impacts? what are the traffic, noise, dust, recreational use, amenity and energy impacts? Performance bond: is there a long-term bond proposed to guarantee post-closure maintenance of the site that also covers any catastrophic failure of the tailings dam and if so is the quantum adequate? is there a long-term bond proposed to guarantee post-closure maintenance of the site that also covers any catastrophic failure of the tailings dam and if so is the quantum adequate? Conservation covenants: what are the implications on the existing conservation covenants present over the subject property? When the panel has completed its assessment, it must decide whether to decline or approve the application. If the latter, it would propose conditions, and there would be a chance for participants to comment on them. After the decision is made, there are limited opportunities for an appeal and wider ones for judicial review which must be filed within 20 working days. EDS is engaging substantively in fast-track projects but is putting significant effort into Santana's application given its imminence, and potential environmental effects. We are waiting to see the full application and evaluate its merits with our experts. Because input is time-limited, that means we must invest resources well in advance of the full application being available. Notably, Santana has indicated it will not share its assessment of environmental effects before filing (after earlier indicating it would do so). EDS believes this project needs rigorous testing through the limited opportunities available under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. This is a statutory process which must be conducted independently, fairly and reasonably and follow the legal pathway. Hyperbolic cheerleading by ministers about the alleged benefits of mining have no place here. Whether Santana passes the section 85 test remains to be seen. There are many fast-track applications pending and communities and councils will be watching with concern. Some projects will be positive, others not. This analysis will hopefully assist in better understanding the way the legislation is likely to operate. To further assist people to engage in other fast-track proposals, EDS has published a peer-reviewed, plain-language guide to the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Ruth Richardson's state honour is a slap in the face for the poor
The architect of 1991's 'mother of all budgets', who was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the King's Birthday honours this week, did immense damage to the country's poorest and most vulnerable, writes Max Rashbrooke. In the early 1990s, two Porirua preschoolers burned to death when their state house was set alight by a candle their family had begun using after the power was cut off. They had been forced to this extremity by a National government that, obsessed by 'market forces', had decided to remove their housing subsidy and require them to pay market rents instead. This sharp rise in costs had left them unable to pay their power bill; hence the candle. Labour MP Graham Kelly caused an uproar in parliament when he attributed these deaths to National's policies – but even allowing for imponderable factors, like whether a candle falls over or not, he was in the broadest sense right. Policies that target the poor always have consequences in the end. And no one targeted the poor harder than Ruth Richardson, who on Monday was made a Companion to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Alongside the market-rent reforms, Richardson is most notorious for the 1991 'mother of all budgets', which cut the benefits of some of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders by up to one-quarter. In a move familiar throughout history, she decided that the burden of tackling New Zealand's (admittedly severe) budget deficit was to fall disproportionately on the poor, rather than those better able to bear it. The result was immediate: a doubling of the number of those living in the most extreme poverty – that is, on less than 40% of the typical income – from 4% in 1990 to 8% two years later. Most policies are much slower to show their effects; Richardson is among a select few who can claim to have doubled poverty overnight. The effects of this stark rise, quite apart from the pain and misery inflicted on families, have spread right throughout New Zealand. Food banks used to be virtually unknown in this country; in the 1990s they became commonplace. Unable to afford to heat their homes, or indeed pay the rent, multiple families began living under one roof, enduring the cold or huddling together for warmth. Mould and damp proliferated. Diseases like rheumatic fever, long since eliminated in other developed nations, flourished in these conditions, wrecking childhoods and ending lives prematurely. A sharp uptick in the hospitalisations of children for medical conditions – from 50 per 1,000 to 70 per 1,000 – began in 1992, just after Richardson's budget. While she was not, of course, the sole author of these misfortunes, she undoubtedly wrote much of the script. Child poverty leaves scars that later affluence never really erases. Children born into hardship have, in adulthood, twice the rate of heart conditions of those born into wealth. They also have far lower reading scores and educational results. Quite apart from being devastating in their own right, these deficits create colossal financial costs: the annual bill from child poverty in this country is estimated at anywhere between $12 billion and $21 billion. This is particularly ironic because Richardson's legacy on the right is one of financial rectitude: she is seen, in particular, as the author of the 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which aimed to improve the transparency and long-term management of the government's accounts. But not only is this relatively small beer compared to the appalling damage poverty inflicts on people's lives, the long-term economic costs of increased hardship are an example of massive financial irresponsibility. Not that Richardson has ever been able to acknowledge as much. Interviewed by the academic Andrew Dean a decade ago, she denied her policies had resulted in any wider harm: 'Over time, was there a social cost? No, there was a social benefit.' That, then, is the person the New Zealand state decided to honour this week: someone who not only did immense damage to the country's poorest but is also quite disconnected from the realities of that harm. The puzzle is less – as some commentators suggested – that it took so long for her to be recognised, but rather that she has been recognised at all. Maybe, though, we should not be surprised. Over in the UK, a similar strategy of slashing government budgets and benefit payments took place under the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024. This austerity cut access to the social services on which ordinary people rely, reduced ambulance services, and sparked poverty-related 'deaths of despair'. All up, it is conservatively estimated by researchers to have caused 190,000 preventable deaths. The man most responsible for this social devastation, former chancellor George Osborne, nonetheless occupies a gilded position in British life, having moved smoothly into editing the Evening Standard newspaper and pontificating on global politics. Inflicting misery on the poor is, in short, socially acceptable as long as it is clothed in the classic establishment rhetoric of taking 'difficult' choices, 'balancing' the books and fiscal 'responsibility'. The poor may be, as the Christians say, always with us, but that does not guarantee that their lives will ever be accorded the proper respect.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Settlement reached
Rua Bioscience has reached a settlement with Australia's Cann Group following legal proceedings initiated by Rua in February last year. In an update to the NZX, Rua said both parties undertook mediation as part of the legal proceedings which had led to the settlement. Both companies had executed new supply agreements to support their respective operations in the New Zealand and Australian medicinal cannabis markets. The commercial terms of the settlement were confidential and took effect immediately.
