![]() |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by Bellasmum
(Post 9240803)
:blink: The OP did not ask what it is like to Live in NZ or Aus for that matter Jangles.
And calling them a troll is pretty rich coming from you. How you can stand to live in NZ beats me ! |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
(Post 9239534)
Amazulu has observed that luxury cars are cheaper because NZ has no luxury car tax. Apart from that exception, I don't see any evidence that cars are cheaper in NZ.
That's all set to change though as prices rise due to the problems in Japan. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10712688 |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
^^ Thanks, that makes sense.
:) |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
(Post 9242858)
^^ Thanks, that makes sense.
:) |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by Buzzy--Bee
(Post 9240932)
Correct. I went to NZ to join my Kiwi girlfriend. However to come from a situation where I was earning more than I could spend to a situation where I was competing with 150 other people for a job that paid $9.50 per hour working in a Resene paint shop was a bit of a surprise!
Yes the natural beauty is stunning despite the Kiwis best efforts to wreck it but you can't eat the scenery! BB As for the Kiwis wrecking there environment you cannot seriously be saying that Victoria is better can you? Burning brown coal for power, Desal plant, Virtually the entire state cleared of it's native forest, 4 football pitches of native forest still being logged per day. I can understand you choosing to live in Melbourne over New Zealand but i do not think you are comparing like for like. |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by papilon
(Post 9242945)
Yes wages are incredibly low, especially for unskilled jobs. That's why it is best to start your own business, plenty of cheap labour at hand.
Originally Posted by papilon
(Post 9242945)
As for the Kiwis wrecking there environment you cannot seriously be saying that Victoria is better can you? Burning brown coal for power, Desal plant, Virtually the entire state cleared of it's native forest, 4 football pitches of native forest still being logged per day.
Originally Posted by papilon
(Post 9242945)
I can understand you choosing to live in Melbourne over New Zealand but i do not think you are comparing like for like.
BB |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Papilon. They burn lignite, both as a primary fuel and for power generation in the South Island of New Zealand. Across the country around two thirds of the natural forest cover has been removed.
|
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by Expat Kiwi
(Post 9243045)
Across the country around two thirds of the natural forest cover has been removed.
|
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by SamSi
(Post 9243187)
That's interesting to know. In school we were taught that the Maoris had big burn offs in the SI when they arrived and then the settlers cleared heaps for farming when they arrived but that's going back 150 years. Is there still lots going on then? Do you have a link you could post? Thanks,
http://www.maf.govt.nz/news-resource...sting/forestry Our family are "Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi" an island in the Hauraki Gulf. It is an open sanctuary and one of New Zealand’s most successful community-led conservation projects. Since 1984, tens of thousands of volunteers have planted pohutukawa and other native trees, transforming the island’s barren pasture into dense forest. The island now boasts healthy populations of some our rarest birds and animals. http://haurakigulf.aucklandnz.com/is...i-matangi.html |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by papilon
(Post 9242945)
Yes wages are incredibly low, especially for unskilled jobs. That's why it is best to start your own business, plenty of cheap labour at hand.
As for the Kiwis wrecking there environment you cannot seriously be saying that Victoria is better can you? Burning brown coal for power, Desal plant, Virtually the entire state cleared of it's native forest, 4 football pitches of native forest still being logged per day. I can understand you choosing to live in Melbourne over New Zealand but i do not think you are comparing like for like. New Zealand is around 30% forest, so actually a lesser ratio than in Victoria. Both places had 80% forest cover prior to white settlement so deforestation has been similar in both places. What really gets me worked up is when people cockily make strident comments assuming them to be factual when they are actually not factual, i.e. that person hasn't even looked for the statistics or done any research. Victoria is full of bloody forest. I wonder if the poster has even toured through rural Victoria to make such inaccurate assertions. Maybe you have been to Melbourne and traveled on a few highways through farming districts but have you actually been on the mountain roads and through the remoter areas, particularly in the central and east of the state where the majority of the forest is? One country where there isn't a lot of forest is the UK with just 12% forest cover and the same size as Victoria, which is where you all came from in the first place I assume. http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/D6D3425A8ACF69CECA257195000972E1/$File/Victoria%27s+Forests.pdf (PDF file) |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by SamSi
(Post 9243187)
That's interesting to know. In school we were taught that the Maoris had big burn offs in the SI when they arrived and then the settlers cleared heaps for farming when they arrived but that's going back 150 years. Is there still lots going on then? Do you have a link you could post? Thanks,
If no one had cleared vast tracts of forest we would all be living with the aborigines in a hunter/gatherer society. Most of the forests here, and no doubt in NZ, are protected, either as part of the parks system or as reserved forest. In some of these reserved forests there are plantations and some forestry activities. Most countries in the world have some sort of a forestry industry. |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by ProudVIC
(Post 9243270)
Victoria is 33% forest as of today. OK, some of it was devastated in the Black Saturday fires and there has been major damage over the past 10 years mainly as a symptom of recent climate change, but it has been hit hard before and it comes back.
New Zealand is around 30% forest, so actually a lesser ratio than in Victoria. Both places had 80% forest cover prior to white settlement so deforestation has been similar in both places. What really gets me worked up is when people cockily make strident comments assuming them to be factual when they are actually not factual, i.e. that person hasn't even looked for the statistics or done any research. Victoria is full of bloody forest. I wonder if the poster has even toured through rural Victoria to make such inaccurate assertions. Maybe you have been to Melbourne and traveled on a few highways through farming districts but have you actually been on the mountain roads and through the remoter areas, particularly in the central and east of the state where the majority of the forest is? One country where there isn't a lot of forest is the UK with just 12% forest cover and the same size as Victoria, which is where you all came from in the first place I assume. http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/D6D3425A8ACF69CECA257195000972E1/$File/Victoria%27s+Forests.pdf (PDF file) |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by ProudVIC
(Post 9243290)
The British (and Scottish/Irish etc.) are responsible for most of the clearing of the forest in Australia and New Zealand. They had to in order to establish residential, industrial, commercial and agricultural areas which are the fundamentals of a civilised society.
If no one had cleared vast tracts of forest we would all be living with the aborigines in a hunter/gatherer society. . |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by papilon
(Post 9243353)
Very funny. They did not have to clear 80% just to make a civilized society, which until recently was only a very small population. They did it because they could and they got very rich doing it. Farming made Australia and NZ. If it wasn't for the High Country there would only be a few pockets of native forest left in Vic. Drive west from Melbourne and there is virtually no native forest left all the way to the S. Australian border. Drive east into south Gippsland and the only tract of decent native forest left is in Wilsons Prom.
BB |
Re: This question is for Kiwi's`Only
Originally Posted by Buzzy--Bee
(Post 9243038)
Yes but you make it sound like if you start your own business you will earn a westernised wage which is just not the case as there isn't the work to go round. A self employed tradie can earn more than twice as much here for instance.
You're right. I didn't say Victoria was better. I'm not comparing like for like. New Zealand is a totally different prospect to Australia. Totally different. I am constantly amazed at the number of people who think they are remotely similar because they both speak English and are in a similar corner of the globe. Myself included up to the age of about 23. BB Not everybody in New Zealand only earns $9.50 per hour. My point was you painted a very bleak picture of New Zealand based on your experience, but many have a completely different view and experience and i just wanted to balance your incredibly negative opinion. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:31 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.