Is nz second place on long term survival
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No — New Zealand is not “second place” on long‑term survival by standard international measures; its life expectancy at birth is high (around 82–83 years) but sits well below the world’s top two positions in published rankings, and recent cohort projections actually emphasize greater longevity for those already born rather than elevating New Zealand to second in global lists [1] [2] [3].
1. What people mean by “long‑term survival” and why precision matters
The phrase “long‑term survival” usually maps to life expectancy at birth, healthy life expectancy, or cohort projections of remaining lifespan; each measure answers a different question — a snapshot of current mortality rates (period life expectancy), expected longevity for a real cohort experiencing future mortality improvements (cohort life tables), or expected years in full health (HALE) — so any claim that a country is “second” must specify which measure and which comparator set (global rankings, OECD, etc.) [4] [5].
2. Where New Zealand actually sits on headline life expectancy
Official and widely cited sources put New Zealand’s life expectancy at birth in the low‑to‑mid 80s: Macrotrends reports 82.95 for 2024 (a slight dip from 2023) and other compilations place both‑sex life expectancy around 82.4–82.95 in recent years [1] [6] [7]. Independent ranking sites list New Zealand in the mid‑20s among ~197 countries by life expectancy, not second place [2] [8].
3. Cohort tables show higher expected ages but do not convert to a global #2
Statistics New Zealand’s cohort life‑table update projects newborn boys born in the early 2020s could average about 88 years and girls about 91 years — these are cohort projections that assume future mortality improvements and therefore raise expected lifespan for those cohorts, but cohort highs do not automatically translate into a #2 world ranking on commonly used year‑of‑birth or period measures [3]. The distinction matters: cohort figures can exceed period life expectancy and are not the same metric used by global rankings [4].
4. Healthy life expectancy and the equity caveat
WHO and UN‑derived datasets indicate New Zealand’s healthy life expectancy (years lived in full health) is materially lower than total life expectancy, and inequalities (by ethnicity and region) persist inside New Zealand; these caveats temper any simplistic “second best” narrative because longevity gains may not be uniform across the population [5] [9]. Reporting that highlights aggregate averages can obscure Māori and Pasifika life‑expectancy gaps documented by national health bodies [9].
5. Rankings, sources and the risk of selective reporting
Different aggregators (World Bank, UN, Macrotrends, Worldometer, commercial ranking sites) use different vintage data, smoothing and assumptions — some show New Zealand around mid‑20s by life expectancy, others show slight variation around low‑80s in years — but none of the provided sources support a claim that New Zealand is second worldwide on long‑term survival [10] [8] [2] [6]. Claims that New Zealand is “second” often come from misreading a specific sublist, a single year’s noisy estimate, or conflating cohort projections with period ranks [3] [2].
6. Bottom line and reporting limits
Based on the cited datasets and official cohort projections, New Zealand ranks high globally for longevity but not second place on standard lifetime or ranking measures; cohort projections show impressive potential lifespan for newborns, yet international rankings compiled from period life tables place New Zealand substantially lower than #2 [1] [3] [2]. This assessment is limited to the provided sources and does not assert the absence of a particular niche index or unpublished metric that might list New Zealand as second; those would need to be cited to change this conclusion.