Introduction to Demographics… · Introduction to Demographics 11 Information on the demographic makeup of New Zealand’s six largest cities is critical to understanding the nature

De

mo

gra

ph

ics

Indicators include:

Population growth Age structure Social deprivation

Net external migration Household composition Low income families with children

Ethnicity Income

There is very little socio-demographic data available either at the six-city level, or able to be broken down further(for example, by ethnicity). Therefore, most of the data within this chapter comes from the 1996 Census.

Impacts and relationships with other areas in this report

This chapter describes the differences and disparities between population groups within and between the sixlargest cities and the rest of New Zealand. The pace of change within cities and the diversity of people impacts onoutcomes in all chapters of this report.

For example:

Income is a key determinant of health outcomes.

Population growth affects citizens’ perceptions of community strength, identity and cohesion

Financial and social deprivation affects the ability of individuals and communities to access services, facilitiesand networks that provide adequate social support.

Age structure within cities is a key determinant of the future supply of the workforce which, linked with qualification rates and industry structures, gives an insight in to future training needs and the matchbetween employment needs and the likely local labour force.

Changing patterns of household composition (e.g. more than two families living in a household) have implications for health outcomes.

Key points

There are vast differences in the socio-demographic makeup of New Zealand’s six largest cities, but all share the common factor of being large urbanised areas, with inherent impacts on physical and social infrastructure.Furthermore, the populations within these cities are expected to grow - it is estimated that 90% of New Zealand’stotal population growth in the next twenty years will take place in the North Island, with the four cities ofAuckland accounting for more than half of the projected population growth. Some characteristics of the socio-demographic makeup of New Zealand’s six largest cities include:

ethnic diversity within and between cities

increasing income inequality

population ageing, especially within the European population

an increasing number of children living in low-income families, with Maori, Pacific Islands and Asianchildren over-represented in comparison with their proportion within the general population.

Existing issues such as inequality and social deprivation are likely to have marked impacts on outcomes in othersectors, both now and into the future.

What’s in this chapter?

Introduction to Demographics 11

Information on the demographic makeup of New Zealand’s six largest cities is critical to understanding the natureof urban communities and how they are changing. Factors such as age, ethnicity, income, and migration are oftenkey determinants of outcomes across a whole range of issues.

Introduction to Demographics…

New Zealand has one of the most highly urbanised populations in the world.1 In 1996, over one third (39%) ofNew Zealand’s population lived in the six largest cities (approximately 1,444,000 people).

Tracking population growth in our major cities ensures that funding, services and facilities are provided to meetthe needs of fast growing communities.

This indicator highlights the fast pace of growth in cities, especially in the Auckland Region.

Population Growth

Between 1991 and 1996 population growth in New Zealand averaged around 7.2%, with increased immigration beinga key contributor.

During this period, the rate of population growth in the four largest cities within the Auckland Region was doublethat for the rest of New Zealand. This trend has continued, with growth in the Auckland Region for the twelvemonths to June 2000 estimated to be three times higher than the average national growth.

For the six largest cities, the average annual population growth between 1991 and 1996 was around 2.2% – spurrednot only by immigration but from natural population increases and internal migration flows.2

Approximately 135,000 new people moved into New Zealand’s six largest cities between 1991 and 1996.

Whilst the Auckland Region received more overseas immigrants than internal migrants (people moving from withinNew Zealand), the opposite was true in both Wellington and Canterbury Regions where internal migration was amore dominant force.

What did we find ?

Quality of Life12

What this is about…

1 Professor Richard Bedford. 1997. Population Change and Urban Expansion and Infrastructure. Paper presented to the NZ Population Conference.

2 Fertility rates in Manukau, Auckland and Waitakere Cities are relatively high. This reflects the population age structure and higher proportions of Maori and Pacific Islandspeople (populations that tend to have higher fertility rates).

3 Calculated from Statistics New Zealand estimates for 30 June 2000.

Data Source: Statistics New Zealand

PERCENTAGE POPULATION GROWTH, BY CITY (1991 TO 1996)

AUCKLAND MANUKAU NORTHSHORE WAITAKERE WELLINGTON CHRISTCHURCH REST OF NZ

13 13 1314

67

5

PERC

ENT

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Although population growth has generally slowed since the last Census, it is estimated that a further 134,451 people havemade New Zealand’s six largest cities their home since 1996.3 Two thirds of the nation’s population growth has taken placein the six cities, with the rest of New Zealand growing by around 4% in the 1996 to 2000 period.

Population Growth/Migration

4 Len Cook. 1997. New Zealand Current and Future Population Dynamics. Presentation to the NZ Population Conference.

13

1996 (Number) 2000 ( June estimate)

Auckland 345,768 386,100

Manukau 254,278 286,700

North Shore 172,164 189,700

Waitakere 155,565 174,100

Wellington 157,646 167,400

Christchurch 309,028 324,900


POPULATION COUNTS, BY CITY (1996 TO 2000)

It is estimated that 90% of New Zealand’s total population growth in the next twenty years will take place in the NorthIsland, with the four cities of Auckland accounting for more than half of the growth. Manukau is expected to become NewZealand’s second largest city by around 2013 (currently Christchurch).4

Year Auckland Manukau North Shore Waitakere Wellington Christchurch

2001 391,000 290,900 192,000 176,400 169,100 327,000

2006 416,500 314,500 205,200 190,200 173,900 336,500

2011 441,500 336,000 218,000 203,300 178,000 344,500

2016 466,500 357,500 230,400 216,400 182,000 352,000

2021 492,000 380,000 242,600 229,800 185,900 358,500

Data Source: Statistics New Zealand (median projections, based on 1996 baseline)

POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO 2021, BY CITY

Net external migration is the number of overseas arrivals into each city less the number of overseas departures.The indicator highlights the number of New Zealand nationals and migrants arriving and leaving the six largestcities and provides an insight into the relative attractiveness of working and living in this country.

Net External Migration


What did we find ?

The four largest cities in the Auckland Region saw more people arrive than leave in the 1980s. However, this was not the case in Wellington and Christchurch where there was a net migration loss until 1991, consistent with national trends.

Between 1991 and 1996, the net external migration trend reversed, with all six cities experiencing significant netgains. Auckland and Christchurch City had the biggest increases over this time. The main reason for the changebetween 1991 and 1996 was the increasing level of immigration. For example, in 1996 around 50% of all new immigrants were living in the Auckland Region.

Quality of Life14

NET EXTERNAL MIGRATION TRENDS, BY CITY (1981 TO 2000)

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

-5,000

-10,000

AUCKLAND

MANUKAU

NORTH SHORE

WAITAKERE

WELLINGTON

CHRISTCHURCH

NU

MB

ER O

F PE

OPL

E

1981 - 86 1986 - 91 1991 - 96 1999 - 2000

Immigrants into New Zealand tend to come from the same countries. Since 1996, Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) have been the most common source countries. However, it should be noted that New Zealanders returning home are alsoincluded in these figures and are likely to have a significant impact on results.


5 Statistics New Zealand. 1999. Demographic Trends. Wellington.

6 Country of last residence does not necessarily indicate that the individual is a citizen of that country.

The Auckland Region wasn’t the only city influenced by immigration during the 1990s. Some cities and regionsundertook targeted marketing campaigns to attract new residents during the mid 1990s. For example ChristchurchCity went from a net external migration loss of 420 people to a net external migration increase of 12,590.

External migration flows, both nationally and into the six largest cities, have slowed considerably in the last fiveyears. For the first time since 1990, overall departures exceeded arrivals in 1999, resulting in a net outflow of 14,000people from New Zealand.5 Since 1995, there has been a downward trend for permanent and long-term migrantarrivals. For example, in 1999 there were 26% less permanent and long term migrant arrivals in the six largest citiesthan in 1996.

Ranking #1 Ranking #2 Ranking #3 Ranking #4 Ranking #5

Auckland UK Australia Japan China India

Manukau Australia UK Western Samoa Hong Kong Taiwan

North Shore UK Australia South Africa Taiwan Japan

Waitakere Australia UK China Western Samoa Hong Kong

Wellington UK Australia USA Japan India

Christchurch UK Australia Japan Taiwan Malaysia


COUNTRY OF LAST RESIDENCE6 FOR PERMANENTAND LONG TERM ARRIVALS INTO NEW ZEALAND, BY CITY (1996 TO 1999)

Ethnicity is identification with those who share racial, linguistic, religious and other traits. Ethnic identity is recognised as involving personal identity and individual perception and choice. In the 1996 Census, respondentscould choose more than one ethnicity and over 15% of New Zealanders indicated that they belonged to more thanone ethnic group. This figure is up significantly from 5% at the 1991 Census.7

This indicator outlines proportions of the main ‘umbrella’ ethnic groupings within each city and the rest of NewZealand. Within each of these broad ethnic groupings there are many smaller ethnic populations, each with itsown age structure, customs, and settlement history in New Zealand. At the 1996 Census there were more than 200 separate ethnic identities recorded nationally, although fewer than 30 had more than 4,000 members.

Ethnic diversity brings with it a wide range of languages, cultural values, and spiritual beliefs. Increasing ethnicdiversity has implications for the range of services that need to be provided and for the way they are provided.

Ethnicity


The ethnic composition of the six largest cities is varied. For example, while North Shore and Christchurch Citieshave relatively large proportions of Europeans, others - such as Manukau and Auckland Cities - are more diverse.

Compared to the rest of New Zealand, the six largest cities have a higher proportion of Asian and Pacific Islands residents. With the exception of Manukau City, the six largest cities have a smaller comparative Maori population.

In 1996, Auckland City was home to the highest number of Asian residents and Manukau City was home to the highest number of Pacific Islands and Maori people.

What did we find ?

Ethnicity 15

7 Data on ethnic identity used in this report has undergone a system of ‘prioritising’ multiple responses in order to allow them to total 100%. Responses are prioritised in

this order – Maori, Pacific People, Asian, Other and European. For example, those who indicated both Maori and European ethnic identity in their Census form have

been counted here as Maori.

8 Data for ‘Other’ ethnic groups has not been included in this graph as the numbers are very small – that is, less than 1%.

AUCKLAND MANUKAU

12.5

12.0

9.1

NORTHSHORE WAITAKERE WELLINGTON CHRISTCHURCH REST OF NZ

58.9

8.42.57.1

77.764.6

73.8

83.6

7.7

4.7

8.69.5

20.5

16.8

47.3

13.0

10.4

6.4

6.91.94.1

75.0

17.0

2.02.0

ASIAN

PACIFIC ISLAND

NZ MAORI

EUROPEAN

100

0

PERC

ENT

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF NEW ZEALAND’S SIX LARGEST CITIES (1996)8


CHANGES IN ETHNIC IDENTITY

People identifying as European within the six largest cities decreased from 82.5% in 1991 to 79.6% in 1996, whereas theproportion of other ethnic identities increased. The most pronounced decrease was recorded in North Shore City, from87.8% to 77.7%.

The overall proportion of New Zealanders identifying as Maori increased from 12.9% in 1991 to 14.5% in 1996, a rise of1.6%.9 Waitakere recorded the largest increase in Maori, from 15,474 in 1991 to 20,181 in 1996.

Nationally, the number of persons identifying as Pacific Islanders increased by 35,000 in the inter-censal period. There was a slight increase in the six largest cities with the exception of Auckland City, which experienced a 1% decrease in the proportion of persons identifying as Pacific Islanders.

The fastest growing ethnic population between 1991 and 1996 was Asian, which rose from 99,759 to 173,502 nationally, arise of 73%. The proportion of Asian residents increased between 1991 and 1996 in all six cities, especially those in theAuckland Region. For example, the relative proportion in Auckland City rose from 7.9% in 1991 to 12.5% in 1996. This waslargely due to immigration.

PROJECTIONS FOR MAORI AND PACIFIC ISLANDS POPULATIONS

Medium range projections prepared by Statistics New Zealand estimate that both the Maori and Pacific Islands populationsin New Zealand will continue to grow.

Maori

Within the participating cities, the largest Maori population growth is expected to occur in Manukau City. By 2016, it is estimated that Manukau will increase by 18,300 Maori - an increase of 41% since 1996. The cities of Waitakere, Christchurchand Auckland are also expected to undergo considerable growth within this ethnic group.

Pacific Islands

Considerable growth within the Pacific Islands population in New Zealand is expected in the next quarter of a century. This growth will be particularly strong in Manukau City, where there will be an anticipated increase of 31,800 Pacific Islands residents by the year 2016 - an increase of 58% since 1996. The cities of Waitakere and Auckland are also predicted toundergo growth in this ethnic group, but on a smaller scale.

Quality of Life16

9 Some of this increase may be due to the different way that the ethnicity question was framed in the 1996 Census.

Census population Population Belonging to Aged Born Medianchange more than under 5 overseas age

1991 1996 1991-96 one ethnic years (%) (%)(number) (number) (%) group (%)

European 2,783,025 2,879,085 3.5 17.3 7.3 13.7 34.6

Maori 434,847 523,371 20.4 47.8 13.7 1.4 21.4

Pacific Island 167,070 202,233 21.0 38.6 15.1 42.2 20.4

Asian 99,759 173,502 73.9 18.5 8.7 74.7 26.6

Total 3,373,926 3,618,300 7.2 15.5 7.7 17.5 33.0


CHARACTERISTICS OF ETHNIC GROUPS IN NEW ZEALAND (1991 TO 1996)

Ethnicity

OVERSEAS BORN POPULATION

According to the 1996 Census there were 605,061 overseas born people living in New Zealand. Almost three in every fourNew Zealanders born in the UK or Ireland, and over half of those born in Europe, had lived here for 20 years or more. Ofthose born in Asian and South African countries, over half had been in New Zealand for less than five years.

The most urbanised of the new immigrants were the Asian and Pacific Island born with more than 98% living in urban areas.

LANGUAGES SPOKEN

In New Zealand, 13% of the population speak two or more languages. Of those who do speak two or more languages, 52%live in New Zealand’s six largest cities. Manukau and Auckland appear to be the most multilingual cities in New Zealand,with around 21% of Auckland residents and 23% of Manukau residents speaking two or more languages.

Across the cities, the wards with the highest percentage of people speaking two or more languages were:

Otara Ward (Manukau) 38%

Mangere Ward (Manukau) 34%

Mt Roskill Ward (Auckland) 26%

Tamaki Ward (Auckland) 26%.

17

FIVE MOST COMMON LANGUAGES SPOKEN (OTHER THAN ENGLISH), BY REGION (1996)

MAORI

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

NU

MB

ER O

F PE

OPL

E

NU

MB

ER O

F PE

OPL

E1996 2016

AUCK

LAN

D

MAN

UK

AU

NO

RTH

SH

ORE

WAI

TAK

ERE

WEL

LIN

GTO

N

CHRI

STCH

URC

H

PACIFIC ISLANDS100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

1996 2016

AUCK

LAN

D

MAN

UK

AU

NO

RTH

SH

ORE

WAI

TAK

ERE

WEL

LIN

GTO

N

CHRI

STCH

URC

H

33,5

00 41,7

00

45,1

00

63,4

00

21,2

00

31,6

00

22,5

00 32,4

00

12,9

00 17,7

00

12,8

00

15,2

00

44,0

00

58,7

00

17,0

00 29,0

00

4,60

0

7,80

0

7,80

0

10,1

00

6,30

0

10,3

00

54,9

00

86,7

00

Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5thPopulation

Auckland 1,068,645 Samoan NZ Maori Cantonese Chinese Tongan FrenchRegion

(46,851) (31,980) (21,696) (16,527) (15,480)

Wellington 414,048 NZ Maori Samoan French German Cantonese ChineseRegion

(14,931) (13,572) (7,809) (4,998) (4,401)

Canterbury 468,039 NZ Maori French German Dutch SamoanRegion

(7,974) (6,219) (4,680) (4,233) (3,564)


Data Source: Statistics New Zealand (based on 1996 data, medium projections)

PROJECTED GROWTH WITHIN ETHNIC GROUPINGS, BY CITY (1996 TO 2016)

This indicator focuses on the age structure across New Zealand’s six largest cities. The age structure of a community is one of its fundamental characteristics and impacts on the range of services, facilities and opportunities that need to be planned for and provided at a local level - that is, different things need to be provided for different age groups.

Age Structure

New Zealand has a higher proportion of children than in many other industrialised nations. In 1996, 23% of NewZealand’s population was under the age of 15 years.

In 1996 North Shore, Auckland and Christchurch Cities had the largest proportions of people aged 65 years and over,while Manukau and Waitakere Cities had the largest proportions of those aged under 19 years.

There are higher proportions of people aged 20 to 44 years living in the six largest cities than in the rest of NewZealand. This is due to work, income and educational opportunities being greater in New Zealand’s largest urbanareas. Wellington City had the largest proportion of residents aged between 20 and 44 years (nearly half of its population at 46.9%) compared with 38.1% for Manukau City and 39.1% for North Shore City.

What did we find ?

Quality of Life18


10 With the exception of North Shore and Christchurch Cities, the median age in New Zealand’s largest cities tends to be slightly younger than the national median.

THE AGEING OF THE NEW ZEALAND POPULATION

Like other nations, New Zealand’s population is ageing. At the beginning of the century New Zealand had a very youthfulpopulation with half of all citizens below the age of 23 years. Transitions in fertility (e.g. trends towards later child bearingage and smaller families) and mortality (longer lives due to factors such as improved medical treatments) provided thenecessary ingredients for the demographic process called “population ageing”. Nationally, the median age has increasedfrom 29.6 years in 1986 to 33 years in 1996.10 The ratio of younger people to older people has also halved from 4:1 in1966 to 2:1 in 1996.

100

0AUCKLAND MANUKAU NORTH

SHORE WAITAKERE WELLINGTON CHRISTCHURCH REST OF NZ

OVER 65 YRS

45 - 64 YRS

20-44 YRS

5-19 YRS

UNDER 5 YRS

43.4

11.4

18.2

19.8

7.2

8.3 11.4 8.4 8.8

18.9

46.9

18.7

6.7

18.6

41.0

23.1

9.0

21.6

39.1

21.3

6.6

18.8

38.1

25.5

9.3

13.6

19.8

39.7

20.5

6.5

12.3

20.4

36.2

23.2

7.9

PERC

ENT

AGE STRUCTURE WITHIN NEW ZEALAND’S SIX LARGEST CITIES (1996)


Age Structure 19

AGE STRUCTURE BY ETHNICITY FOR NEW ZEALAND’S SIX LARGEST CITIES (1996)

CURRENT AND PROJECTED MEDIAN AGE WITHIN NEW ZEALAND’S SIX LARGEST CITIES

AGE AND ETHNICITY

The ageing population trend is more specific to the New Zealand European population. Maori, Pacific Islands and Asianpopulations tend to be younger than NZ European. In 1996, the median age for Maori was 21.4 years, well below theNew Zealand median of 33 years. Maori now account for one in every four of all New Zealand children under five yearsand 23.6% of children under 15 years.

The Pacific Islands populations have some of the youngest age structures of any ethnic group within the national population. The median age in 1996 was 20.4 years.

Comparing the age structures for the six largest cities to those for the rest of New Zealand, there is a tendency for those aged 5 to 14 years and 45 years and over, to live outside the six largest cities, especially for European and Maori populations.

1996 (yrs) 2001 (yrs) 2011 (yrs) 2021 (yrs)

Auckland 32.4 33.9 36.8 38.9

Manukau 29.5 31.0 34.1 35.7

North Shore 34.2 35.8 38.9 41.4

Waitakere 31.0 32.5 35.2 36.8

Wellington 31.9 33.3 36.0 37.7

Christchurch 33.6 35.2 38.9 41.6


65 yrs and over

45-64 yrs

25-44 yrs

20-24 yrs

15-19 yrs

5-14 yrs

Under 5 yrs

PERCENT

PERCENT

PERCENT

PERCENT0 10 20 30 40

ASIAN

65 yrs and over

45-64 yrs

25-44 yrs

20-24 yrs

15-19 yrs

5-14 yrs

Under 5 yrs

0 10 20 30 40

MAORI 65 yrs and over

45-64 yrs

25-44 yrs

20-24 yrs

15-19 yrs

5-14 yrs

Under 5 yrs

0 10 20 30 40

PACIFIC ISLANDS

65 yrs and over

45-64 yrs

25-44 yrs

20-24 yrs

15-19 yrs

5-14 yrs

Under 5 yrs

0 10 20 30 40

EUROPEAN

2.2

11.2

30.5

10.7

10.0

21.8

13.6

3.3

12.2

30.8

8.9

9.5

21.8

13.5

13.9

22.1

32.5

8.1

6.1

11.3

6.0

2.2

11.2

30.8

8.9

11.8

17.0

7.9


AUCKLAND MANUKAU NORTHSHORE WAITAKERE WELLINGTON CHRISTCHURCH REST OF NZ

TWO OR MORE FAMILIES

ONE FAMILY

COUPLE ONLY

ONE PERSON

NON-FAMILY

20

41.4

22

8.3

3.5 7.2

54.4

48.852.6

40.5 42 44.5

25.9

20.3

4.4

24.3

23.1

7.1

1.6 21.8

22.3

22.9

9.6

4.5

21

14.9

3.8

2.5

23.7

17.8

4.8

18.6

13.2

3.5

100

0

PERC

ENT

Household composition reflects living arrangements within New Zealand households, as measured in the Census.A ‘household’ for Census purposes comprises the person or persons who reside in a private dwelling, and a ‘family’ is defined as a husband or wife (in a legal or de-facto marriage) with or without children of any age livingin the same dwelling – or a sole parent, of any marital status, living with children of any age.11

Household composition can reflect the impact of changing social trends (e.g. later marriages, lower fertility ratesand independent living) as well as economic pressures (such as housing costs, tertiary education fees andincomes) and cultural preferences (eg. extended family and intergenerational living).

Household Composition

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

While most people still live in a family, the 1996 Census detected more people choosing to live alone or in relationships that do not include children.

The highest proportions of non-family and one person households are in Wellington and Auckland Cities. This probably reflects the larger numbers of single, professional people and students living in the inner-city areas.

The six largest cities have a lower proportion of couple only households when compared to the rest of New Zealand.

Compared to the rest of New Zealand, Auckland, Waitakere and Manukau Cities have a much higher rate of two ormore families living in the same house. This is may be due to increasing housing costs leading to ‘doubling’ up offamilies in one house and may also reflect patterns of intergenerational living common in Maori, Asian and PacificIslands cultures.

In 1996, Manukau City’s rate of households with two or more families (7.2%) was three times greater than the rest ofNew Zealand.

What did we find ?

Quality of Life20



11 It is acknowledged that Census based family data reflects predominantly European definitions of nuclear based family structures. Some have argued that this approach

does not “capture satisfactorily the structures found in present day New Zealand” (Shirley, Koopman–Boyden, Pool and St. John. 1997. Family Change and family

policies: New Zealand.) For example, a grandmother, mother and three children living together in the same house would “officially” be counted as two families.

However, they may view themselves as being one family rather than two.

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, BY CITY (1996)

Household Composition 21

Between 1991 and 1996, the proportion of households with two or more families increased at a rate of at least 50% in thesix largest cities, compared to a 30% increase for the rest of New Zealand.

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

In 1996, the average number of household members nationally was 2.7 people. Four of the six largest cities were at orabove this figure, especially Manukau City with an average of 3.4 persons per household.

Several wards in the Auckland Region were found to have particularly high average numbers of household members,namely Massey (3.3), Manurewa (3.4), Mangere (4.1) and Otara (4.6).

Average number ofhousehold members

Auckland 2.7

Manukau 3.4

North Shore 2.8

Waitakere 3.0

Wellington 2.6

Christchurch 2.6


AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, BY CITY (1996)

1991 1996

AUCKLAND MANUKAU NORTHSHORE WAITAKERE

PERC

ENT

WELLINGTON CHRISTCHURCH REST OF NZ

2.1

3.5

4.4

7.2

1.6

2.52.7

4.5

1.21.8

0.91.6 1.5

2.0

8

6

4

2

0


PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH TWO OR MORE FAMILIES RESIDENT, BY CITY (1991 AND 1996)

This section focuses on household and personal income of citizens in the six largest cities and is based on Census data.

Income is a key determinant of individual, family and community wellbeing and is the single most importantmodifiable determinant related to health and quality of life in general. Income levels indicate the ability ofcitizens to meet their needs and directly correlates with their conditions of health, education, social interaction,housing, leisure and general life style.

It should be noted that income data in this section has not been equivalised, that is, it has not been adjusted totake into account household composition.

Income

What did we find ?

Quality of Life22


12 Gentrification is where older areas are renovated and upgraded, usually by more affluent households moving into the area, thus forcing lower income households out of

these areas.

13 Personal income data presented in this section covers all income sources, for example from employment, own business, asset ownership, superannuation and capital

income. This data covers the general population within the age bracket, including those working, those not working, students and retired people. People who had a zero

income are also included.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

With the exception of Christchurch City, median household income tends to be higher in the six cities than in the restof New Zealand. This is partly off-set by the higher costs of living in cities.

Between 1991 and 1996 there was a national increase in median household income of 12.6%. Most cities followed thenational trend, with the exception of Auckland City. In Auckland the median household income for the 1991 to 1996period increased by 23%, from $34,189 to $42,164 per annum. A possible reason for this was the rapid pace ofgentrification12 across a number of key wards and suburbs bordering the central city, drawing in young upwardlymobile professionals with higher incomes.

Large variations within cities are often lost when city wide medians are focussed on. For example, in Christchurch, the1996 median household for the Fendalton Ward was $40,935, whereas in the Hagley Ward it was only $25,335.Similarly in Manukau City, the Howick Ward had a median household income of $53,208 whereas $36,005 was themedian in the Otara Ward.

1991 ($) 1996 ($)

Auckland 34,189 42,164

Manukau 37,078 42,772

North Shore 41,719 46,997

Waitakere 36,335 41,605

Wellington 46,039 50,998

Christchurch 29,336 32,962

Total New Zealand 30,910 34,825


PERSONAL INCOME – ENDS OF THE SCALE

In 1996, the median personal income nationally was $15,603 (of all persons aged 15 years and over).13 There has beenmuch concern at the growing gap between income earners at the lower and upper ends of the scale in recent years.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY CITY (1991 AND 1996)

Income

14 Statistics New Zealand. 1999. NZ Now – Incomes.

15 Figures at the upper and lower end of the income scale must be treated with some caution, as upper income earners are less likely to respond to

income questions and very low income earners sometimes hide income as assets and under report their incomes.

16 It should be noted that there is significant variation in income groupings within the various Asian ethnic communities.

Analysis of income by ethnicity indicates that Maori, Pacific Islands and Asian populations are earning less than theirEuropean counterparts. However, this income data has not been age standardised and the younger nature of these populations will have an impact on their relative proportions in the various income groups. That is, populations withyounger age structures tend to have lower incomes.

23

less than $20,000 p.a. (%) more than $70,000 p.a. (%)

European 49 5

Maori 58 2

Pacific Islands 65 1

Asian 70 2


LESS THAN $20,000 PA $70,000 PA OR MORE

AUCK

LAN

D

MAN

UK

AU

NO

RTH

SH

ORE

WAI

TAK

ERE

WEL

LIN

GTO

N

CHRI

STCH

URC

H

TOTA

LN

EW Z

EALA

ND

AUCK

LAN

D

MAN

UK

AU

NO

RTH

SH

ORE

WAI

TAK

ERE

WEL

LIN

GTO

N

CHRI

STCH

URC

H

TOTA

LN

EW Z

EALA

ND

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PERC

ENT

PERC

ENT

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5357

51 54

46

61

41

6

3

5

2

7

2 2


PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WITHIN EACH ETHNIC GROUP AGED 15 YEARSAND OVER (IN SIX LARGEST CITIES) WITHIN EACH INCOME BRACKET (1996)

National income inequality increased substantially between 1986 and 1991, and continues to do so.14

The proportion of people at the lower end of the income scale outweighs the proportion at the upper end.15 The cities with a greater relative share of people in the upper income bracket generally also had a lower share of people in the lowerincome bracket.

Of the six largest cities, Wellington had the highest proportion of personal incomes greater than $70,000 p.a. (7%). This isprobably due to the high concentration of professionals living in the capital. It also appears there are more high incomeearners living in the six largest cities than within the general New Zealand population.

In 1996 the proportion of people aged 15-64 years earning less than $20,000 p.a. in the six cities was higher than in the restof New Zealand whereas the proportion earning less than $10,000 p.a. was similar.

PROPORTION OF POPULATION AGED 15 YEARS AND OVER IN PERSONAL INCOME BRACKETS, BY CITY (1996)

The large proportion of the Asian population in the lowest income brackets may be due to the following factors:

younger age structure of the Asian population (many young Asian people are studying full time)

lower rate of overall labour force participation by the Asian community and difficulties in obtaining employment formany new Asian immigrants

undeclared or overseas income

a large number of refugees within the Asian ethnic group

many Asian families can be seen to be ‘asset rich’ but cash poor, that is, not generating an income through regular employment.16

BENEFITS RECEIVED

Government benefit statistics for the six largest cities show how many working age people (those aged between 15 and 65years) are receiving some sort of government assistance. This data includes all benefits (for example unemployment, student allowances, domestic purposes benefit) except superannuation payments. Across the six largest cities, the largestproportions of beneficiaries were in the 25 to 44 year age group.

Maori and Pacific Islands citizens are over-represented in government benefit recipient data for all six cities. However, theopposite is true for European and Asian populations, who are under-represented.

Of those people receiving benefits, just over one third have been receiving assistance for more than two years, and of thosepeople, just under 10% are aged 19 to 24 years. Manukau and Waitakere Cities have slightly higher rates than the othercities in this younger age group - probably due to the younger age structure of these cities.

NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF BENEFICIARIES RECEIVINGBENEFITS FOR TWO OR MORE YEARS, BY CITY (2000)

Quality of Life24

Number of beneficiaries % change from May 1999

May 2000

Auckland 39,919 -2.4

North Shore 14,712 13.0

Manukau 38,470 2.6

Waitakere 20,527 -6.7

Wellington 13,913 -12.6

Christchurch 42,124 -2.9

Data Source: Work and Income New Zealand

Number of beneficiaries % of beneficiariesreceiving benefits for receiving benefits for

more than 2 years more than 2 years

Auckland 14,415 36.1

Manukau 14,664 38.1

North Shore 4,714 32.0

Waitakere 7,086 34.5

Wellington 4,312 31.0

Christchurch 14,688 34.9

Data Source: Work and Income New Zealand

TOTAL BENEFICIARIES, BY CITY (YEAR TO MAY 2000)

Social Deprivation

The New Zealand Social Deprivation Index combines a range of key socio-demographic factors from the 1996Census and estimates an overall score of material and social deprivation for a particular area, on a scale of 1(regarded as being least deprived) to 10 (regarded as being the most deprived or experiencing considerable hardship). Social deprivation scores generally reflect the ability of households in an area to achieve positive outcomes in areas such as health, education and employment.

Factors included in the Index are:

Income: equivalised household income (adjusted for household composition).

Income: people aged 18-59 receiving a means tested benefit.

Transport: people with no access to a car.

Living Space: equivalised household below a bedroom occupancy threshold.

Owned home: people not living in own home.

Employment: unemployed people aged 18 to 59 years.

Qualifications: people aged 18 to 59 years without any qualifications.

Support: people aged less than 60 years living in a sole parent family.

Communication: people with no access to a telephone.

Social Deprivation


Auckland and Christchurch Cities follow the national pattern.

North Shore and Wellington Cities also share a similar trendline - with relatively greater proportions of their populationsin the less deprived areas. These two cities have more or less the opposite deprivation trendline to Manukau City. Sixtypercent of people in North Shore City and 55% of people in Wellington City live in areas ranked 1 to 3 (least deprived)whereas Manukau City has a marked proportion of its population in deciles 9 and 10 (most deprived).

In Waitakere City however, a different pattern emerges with a major ‘bulge’ appearing in deprivation deciles 6 to 8. This reflects a greater share of ‘below average’ areas - a grouping who have been particularly hard hit by economic andsocial restructuring over the last ten years.

What did we find ?

25

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION LIVING IN DEPRIVATION INDEX DECILES, BY CITY (1996)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(% least deprived) (% most deprived)

Auckland 13 11 10 9 9 9 8 10 9 12

Manukau 12 10 7 6 6 6 8 9 13 21

North Shore 20 20 20 14 11 7 4 3 1 1

Waitakere 9 11 8 10 10 13 16 12 8 3

Wellington 26 15 12 10 9 7 8 6 3 4

Christchurch 13 12 11 11 9 10 8 10 10 6

Data Source: Health Services Research Council

Research undertaken by the Family Services Centre in Wellington has estimated that around 60% of medianincome (adjusted for household composition) is necessary for a family to provide the essentials of food, shelter,clothing, healthcare and transport.17 For the purpose of this project, family income data has been analysed toascertain how many families (with children) in the six cities earned less than 60% of the median family income.18

Financial stress impacts on family relationships and the ability of the family to access a full range of goods,services and opportunities such as leisure, sports, tertiary education, pharmacy prescriptions, and childcare.Children living in families who are financially stressed are likely to have poor outcomes in health and educationand are less likely to be able to participate fully in society because of financial constraints. Income inequality isalso adversely associated with both mortality and hospitalisation rates.19

Low Income Families with Children

Around one fifth of children in families in New Zealand’s six largest cities could be said to be living ‘in poverty’.

In the four largest cities in the Auckland Region, the number of families with children experiencing poverty increasedbetween 1991 and 1996. The rate stayed the same in Wellington (18%) and dropped slightly in Christchurch from 19%to 18%.

What did we find ?

Quality of Life26


17 Waldegrave C, Stephens R and Frater P. 1996. New Zealand Poverty Measurement Project.

18 Within this analysis, income data was segmented into broad income categories in order to estimate the number of families ‘in poverty’. For each city, 60% of median

family income was calculated. The number of families (with children) in the closest lowest income bracket and below were then assessed. Family income levels have not

been equivalised, that is, adjusted for household composition, number and age of children. For example, 60% of 1996 median family income in Wellington was $35,180

– the number of families earning less than $30,000 (the closest income bracket) was calculated. ‘Couple only’ families and families with ‘non specified’ income have

been excluded from the data set. In all cases, the data reflects a likely underestimate of families with children experiencing financial hardship.

19 Howden-Chapman, Blakely, Blaiklock and Kiro. 2000. Closing the Gap. New Zealand Medical Journal.

There are large volumes of people affected by social deprivation within New Zealand’s largest urban areas. The NewZealand Deprivation Index indicates that across New Zealand’s six largest cities, nearly one quarter of a million people areliving in high need areas. For example, although North Shore City has only 2% of its population living within the ‘mostdeprived’ areas (deciles 9 & 10), this equates to 3,777 people experiencing deprivation.

WARDS WITHIN THE SIX CITIES WITH THE HIGHESTPROPORTION OF MESHBLOCKS IN DECILES 9 AND 10 (1996)

City % of area in decile 9 and 10

Otara Manukau 84

Mangere Manukau 71

Tamaki Auckland 62

Hagley Christchurch 56

Hauraki Gulf Islands Auckland 44

Manurewa Manukau 38

Data Source: Health Services Research Council

There is considerable variation in Deprivation Index rankings at ward level. The following table notes the wards within thesix cities that have the highest proportion of ‘high need’ areas.

Low Income Families with Children 27

20 Statistics New Zealand. 1997. Census 1996: Highlights – Income.

21 Ethnicity of family was calculated using ethnic identities of the adults and data on ethnicity used in this analysis has undergone a system of ‘prioritising’ responses.

For example, where one parent identified as Maori and another as European, the family has been categorised as Maori.

22 Figures do not add up to 100% as the ‘Other’ ethnic category has not been listed.

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES (WITH CHILDREN) EARNING LESSTHAN 60% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, BY ETHNICITY (1991 & 1996)22

Generally speaking, families with just one child were the most likely to be living in poverty. Nationally, 71% of one parentfamilies received less than $20,000 each year, compared with 9% of couples with dependent children.20

With the exception of Manukau, the majority of families with children living ‘in poverty’ are European, reflecting the predominance of European ethnicities within the six largest cities.21 However, Maori, Pacific Islands and Asian families with children are over-represented. In 1996, these ethnic groups made up around 29% of the population in the six cities,but comprised 42% of families with children living in hardship.

Looking at proportions of low-income families with children between 1991 and 1996, the general trend was a reduction inthe percentage for Maori and Pacific Islands families. However, the relative proportion of Asian families with children whocould be seen to be “in poverty” increased from 6% to 15% in the same period.

1991Auckland Manukau North Shore Waitakere Wellington Christchurch

n=9399 n=8385 n=5346 n=4539 n=4083 n=9021

% % % % % %

European 41 28 58 58 60 82

NZ Maori 20 34 9 21 16 12

Pacific Island 29 32 4 16 12 3

Asian 8 6 5 4 11 2

1996 n=11382 n=11322 n=6162 n=5685 n=4332 n=8568% % % % % %

European 26 18 43 39 55 73

NZ Maori 13 24 9 17 16 13

Pacific Island 19 26 3 11 11 3

Asian 22 14 20 11 15 10


30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AUCKLAND MANUKAU

PERC

ENT

NORTHSHORE WAITAKERE WELLINGTON CHRISTCHURCH

1991 1996

20 20 2018

2018 18 19 18

2224

21

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES (WITH CHILDREN)EARNING LESS THAN 60% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, BY CITY (1991 AND 1996)


Documents

Introduction to Demographics… · Introduction to Demographics 11 Information on the demographic makeup of New Zealand’s six largest cities is critical to understanding the nature