Falling birthrate opens door for immigration

Does New Zealand need more immigrants? Yes, reports WARREN GAMBLE, in the first in a Herald series.

Until now, the go forth and multiply command hardly needed uttering. From the time Maori set foot on these shores more than 1000 years ago, we have been faithfully begetting others in our own likeness.

The arrival of the British helped things along, so much so that in the past 100 years New Zealand's population more than trebled from just under a million to 3.8 million.

Most of that increase (84 per cent) was due to plain procreation. Despite the heat, bigotry and news coverage immigration generates, migrants had little to do with population growth.

Instead, immigration offset the number of New Zealanders heading off on the big OE or to careers elsewhere. Since the 1960s it has also had the benefit of making New Zealand more diverse and interesting.

But now, population experts say, the natural order of things is altering, and immigration could be the only way to get more people.

That is because begetting is not what it used to be.

From a peak of 4.3 births a woman in 1961, fertility rates have dropped to about two, below the level needed to replace population.

(The replacement level is 2.1 - one baby for each woman and partner plus a factor to compensate for the greater number of males born.)

In just-released forecasts, Statistics New Zealand uses a fertility rate of 1.9, and others see signs the birthrate could drop further.

Combined with the large number of baby boomers reaching old age, it means deaths are likely to exceed births in the 2040s.

The population will then slowly start falling for the first time - from a peak of 4.6 million to 4.2 million by the end of the century - even allowing for moderate migration gains.

Some, like environmentalist Eugenie Sage and Maori activist Mike Smith, argue that fewer people would be a good thing.

Ms Sage, a Christchurch Forest and Bird regional officer, claims that for such a small population we have managed to make a hugely negative impact on the environment. River quality and dwindling native animal and plant life are among the casualties.

Mr Smith contends that New Zealand has a strategic advantage with low population, and the last thing we need is to overburden our resources.

Countering those views is the prevailing growth-is-good free-market approach embraced by the developed world.

In a global marketplace powered by an insatiable United States economy, it is a path we cannot afford to get off, the argument goes, and one where a shrinking population and smaller, older workforce would be a nasty road block.

So, what can be done? Australian and New Zealand demographers meeting in Wellington last week were clear that fertility rates will be hard to shift upwards.

No Government would sponsor a "Your Country Needs You to Reproduce" campaign for fear of raising the spectre of state interference in the most private of decisions.

But one of New Zealand's leading demographers, Professor Ian Pool, of Waikato University, argues that the Government can do much more to promote "family friendly" policies and get rid of unfriendly ones.

In his sights particularly is the student loan scheme, a policy he calls "the most anti-natalist measure ever put into legislation by a New Zealand Government."

While he does not call for the loans' complete abolition, and welcomes the freezing of interest charges, he says a minimum next step would be to make them tax deductible.

"We seem to have forgotten the demographic truth that repayment starts at exactly the moment graduates need to set up businesses and also start family formation."

Professor Pool says the loans have the even worse effect of driving highly skilled people overseas.

However, even in countries like France where family support has been substantially enhanced, the impact on increasing fertility has been small.

Professor Pool acknowledges that family-friendly policies will not lift fertility, but he says they would at least arrest its fall.

That leaves the other side of the population equation: migration.

Former Minister of Immigration Tuariki Delamere, now an immigration consultant, is - perhaps unsurprisingly - gung-ho about boosting immigrant numbers.

"I personally think we should set a target by the end of this decade to get [a population of] around six million.

"People say we don't want that many people hereth...thbut I believe our country needs six to eight million to help the economy to grow. We do need to be more encouraging, more laterally thinking."

Professor Pool bristles at the idea. Even assuming an optimistic natural increase of 1 per cent a year, he says one million immigrants would have to arrive each year to reach the six million target (when emigration is factored in).

He also decries using immigration to prime the economic pump.

United States experience shows that it takes up to three generations before immigration's economic contribution counts, he says.

Immigration is also not an antidote to our ageing population - the 1980s and 1990s business migrant scheme accelerated ageing by bringing in people in their 40s, says Professor Pool.

Although some had adolescent children, research showed that many would not stay in New Zealand after their schooling because they did not see a future.

"We need immigration because it enriches the culture and the society. We will also always have to recruit some specialised skills, and we have been extremely lucky with the people that have come here.

"But let's have migrants because we value them as people, not because we see them as a quick and dirty way of improving our disastrous economic performance."

In its forecast of a declining population from 2044, Statistics NZ uses a net migration gain of 5000 a year - the average last century.

In two of its other models, a 10,000 net gain would help keep the population rising until 2071 before falling; and a 20,000 gain would see continued growth this century, with up to 6.3 million people by 2101.

The Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel, is holding steady to the current objective of a 10,000 net gain each year (from a target of 38,000 residency approvals).

She says immigration policy is overdue for some stability, and any change needs to be a cabinet decision.

The net gain is a notoriously elusive creature though, because the Government cannot control how many people leave New Zealand.

In the 1990s it happens that the 10,000 net gain was achieved, but that was through wild swings caused by emigration, Government policy switches, and economic factors.

In the past two years there have been migration losses - almost 9000 in the year to March - as large numbers of New Zealanders are lured by an attractive Australian economy.

Professor Pool says that highlights another challenge to those hoping immigration will be a cure. The dynamic United States economy is on a recruitment binge for skilled labour as its workforce contracts, and ageing European economies also need labour.

As well as taking some of New Zealand's brightest, such countries are also taking potential immigrants from us, particularly as we are perceived to have a poor settlement record once migrants arrive.

That is a whole other story.

Out of the complex web of factors surrounding population growth, the experts and the Government are clear about the debate needing a higher profile.

It is a big ask in a market-driven world focused on short-term results. As Australian demographer Professor Peter McDonald said last week: "When I speak to economists about labour supply in 2020, their eyes glaze over."

But in a small step along the way, Ms Dalziel has asked Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton to lead the development of a sustainable population policy in his economic development portfolio.

The immigrants - a Herald series

Participate in our online forum