New Zealand Warned Over Exodus To Australia

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 5-13-2006 | Paul Chapman

[blam]

New Zealand warned over exodus to Australia

By Paul Chapman in Wellington
(Filed: 13/05/2006)

New Zealand risks becoming a mere "shell country" if it continues to lose people to Australia at the current rate, according to Jim Bolger, the former prime minister.

Mr Bolger, who governed from 1990 to 1997, said in a speech to his centre-Right National Party that so many "good people" were migrating that New Zealand faced the "hard question" of whether it should become part of Australia as a "conscious decision" or simply be "absorbed by osmosis".

Australia's founding constitution, dating from 1901, gave New Zealand the right to become a part of its larger neighbour if it chose to do so. The clause has never been revoked.

Mr Bolger's warning comes only days after official statistics showed that the westward exodus across the Tasman Sea reached a net 20,713 in the year to March, or almost 400 a week.

For a country with a population of little more than four million, the figure represents a significant loss, and the rate has doubled in the past two years.

This week's announcement of personal tax cuts in Australia's budget has only heightened fears that the numbers will continue at similar levels, since it is acknowledged that personal wealth is a prime consideration among potential migrants.

New Zealand's opposition blames the Labour Party's comparatively high tax regime for increased emigration.

Economists estimate that real incomes in Australia are more than 30 per cent higher than in New Zealand, and a "common market" type arrangement allows free movement of labour between the two countries.

New Zealand has a long history of supplying Australia with population. In contrast, the trickle of Australians to New Zealand is almost negligible.

New Zealand's income per head is lower than in seven of the eight Australian states and territories, the exception being Tasmania.

Other reasons cited by migrants are Australia's sunnier weather, the lure of bigger cities, and an easy-going lifestyle into which New Zealanders can readily assimilate.

Maoris, who tend to be low paid, are fleeing their ancestral homeland at an even greater rate than New Zealanders of European blood.

One recent study revealed that, if present trends continue, within a few decades more than one third of all Maoris will live in Australia.

[null and void]

Why would anyone want to leave the most beautiful country on earth. ~ Mike Darancette

Taxes. ~ aculeus

And regulations. The same reasons people are leaving California, arguably the most beautiful state in America, and moving to frickin' deserts!

[BFPRufus]

Which would be bad if it was true. However :-

1) NZ immigrant unemployment is below the Australian born unemployment rate.
2) Kiwis in Australia cannot go on the dole for 2 years - that is you're employed or you're broke. Similarly I haven't noticed (in Melbourne) any Kiwi beggars at all - all that I've encountered have Aussie accents, so it's not like they're getting handouts there either.
3) Australia is currently reporting a major skills shortage, with lack of skilled applicants being the main problem reported by Australian businesses (at least according to yesterday's Age). If Australia doesn't want culturally-similar Kiwi's simply close that border, but also they need to think of who they get in to fix their labour shortage.
4) Is the dole in Australia really that much better than in nanny-state New Zealand? I faltted with someone temporarily unemployed in NZ and she got about $195/week in 1999. A long-term unemployed Aussie here I flatted with was getting about $175 per week in 2003. Even with the exchange rate difference I don't think the Kiwi dole bludgers would be any better in australia than in New Zealand, and without the $500 flight, 2 year waiting period, higher cost of living, lower medical benefits etc.

It is a common myth in Australia about the Kiwi dole-bludgers but it really doesn't stack up with the facts.