How's life in NZ/Aus?

thebigmc

Lots of reports in the news today about the number of workers required for rebubilding works in Christchurch.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0813/breaking132.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/in-brief-call-for-irish-construction-workers-to-help-rebuild-after-new-zealand-quakes-2847970.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0813/newzealand.html

Irishtimes

The Earthquake Commission (EQC) of New Zealand has said it wants to recruit Irish construction workers as part of a major rebuilding project in Christchurch following three major earthquakes in the region over the last 12 months.

At a media briefing in the country’s second largest city this weekend, the head of the Commission Ian Simpson said around 100,000 houses needed repairs and he estimated that as many as 8,000 labourers would be required to complete the reconstruction work.

Mr Simpson said that while there was still a lot of labourers available in New Zealand there would almost certainly be a need to go overseas to recruit qualified people.

He said “initial approaches” had been made in Ireland. ”We know there are similar workers - English speaking, large unemployment rate of skilled workers, so we can bring those in when we need them.''

Many of the positions currently being advertised by the Commission are permanent and have salaries ranging from €30,000 to €60,000.

A 6.3 magnitude quake in February was the most severe of a string of shakes in Christchurch and its surrounding Canterbury region over the last 12 months and much the city is still in ruins with entire suburbs declared uninhabitable.

Mr Simpson said and emergency repairs had now been carried out on 22,000 homes through to keep them watertight, warm and secure and €800 billion in compensation to victims of the disasters.

An ambitious blueprint to rebuild the city was unveiled earlier this week. . When Christchurch's mayor Bob Parker launched the plans he said they offered a vision of a “safe, sustainable, green, high-tech, low-rise city in a garden”.

The Construction Industry Federation welcomed the news that workers from Ireland would be actively sought but expressed concern that the industry would lose more workers to emigration.

kiwipower

I got a text from Homer about a Snow Fall in Wanganui.
Do any boardies have photos of this phenomenon that they can post? As I cant believe it!

MrCreosote

kiwipower wrote: »

I got a text from Homer about a Snow Fall in Wanganui.
Do any boardies have photos of this phenomenon that they can post? As I cant believe it!

Snowing all over- wellington, taranaki, even in Auckland a single snowflake was spotted disturbing some hipster's macchiato on Ponsonby road...

doriansmith

kiwipower wrote: »

I got a text from Homer about a Snow Fall in Wanganui.
Do any boardies have photos of this phenomenon that they can post? As I cant believe it!

No photos but was bucketing snow in central Wellington today too which is apparently unheard of. Most of the country's being hit by a polar blast, brrr

pclancy

Lots of photos on Stuff.co.nz

Still a nice dusting all over the suberbs of Wellington and the surrounding hills. Pencarrow and the South Coast look gorgeous right now with the blue skies. The thunder and ligtening last night were amazing but the power cuts made it a night without much interweb

Zambia

If anyone is interested Heineken slabs are on special in woolies $40.

jank

JamesKav wrote: »

Love Nz most cultural country out there by far, My Mothers from Nz so I might be a bit one sided.

Hmm I don't know about cultural. NZ is a fantastic place but cultural it is not.

pclancy

That's just your take on it...Wellington is pretty cultural imo!

I've never seen as many new music acts from metal, dub, funk, blues as i have the last three years, artists, plays, movies and short films, fine food, really good photographic exhibitions etc etc. The place may have a short history and not much of its own literature or philosophy to draw on but its a good melting pot of culture imo.

jank

Wellington I have not really been to much apart from a day here and there. I am talking about NZ in general.

In fairness they do try with their small events with this and that but I would not really classify random events such as a flower show, busker festival or photo exhibition as cultural. Culture is a lot more and cannot be just manufactured by an events organiser. Compared to Ireland for example NZ lags waaay behind but that is expected as ireland is a few thousand years old. Even Australia would lag behind Ireland in my opinion. Then talk about Italy, Greece, Japan, China, or Austria etc there is no comparison. Then again this is the attraction of NZ to alot of people. A new land with little hassle and complexes where a simple life is very easy to attain. Culture to some people is baggage.
Swings and roundabouts /:|

jackbhoy

jank wrote: »

Wellington I have not really been to much apart from a day here and there. I am talking about NZ in general.

In fairness they do try with their small events with this and that but I would not really classify random events such as a flower show, busker festival or photo exhibition as cultural. Culture is a lot more and cannot be just manufactured by an events organiser. Compared to Ireland for example NZ lags waaay behind but that is expected as ireland is a few thousand years old. Even Australia would lag behind Ireland in my opinion.

Well Maori and Aboriginal people might argue with you there Jank, especially as the latter is classed as one of the oldest cultures on earth. I suppose the main difference with Ireland is we have a recorded history going back well over a 1000 years, this only happened in Aus/NZ when Europeans turned up, which in scheme of things is a pretty recent event!

Mellor

jackbhoy wrote: »

Well Maori and Aboriginal people might argue with you there Jank, especially as the latter is classed as one of the oldest cultures on earth. I suppose the main difference with Ireland is we have a recorded history going back well over a 1000 years, this only happened in Aus/NZ when Europeans turned up, which in scheme of things is a pretty recent event!

There are plenty of insular cultures that have their own unique elements, but that is what was refered to.
Aboriginal culture may or may not be classed as one of the oldest cultures on earth. It has nothing to do with New Zealand

In this context, culture refers to the events and life in NZ. I can't comment directly as I've never lived there, but for example in sydney there is very little indigenous culture on a day to day basis, so the fact that its one of the oldest is irrelevant.

I don't agree that there is no culture btw, I'm not even sure what "culture" is supposed to be. I just know that its most definitely modern australia - which suits me fine

jank

jackbhoy wrote: »

Well Maori and Aboriginal people might argue with you there Jank, especially as the latter is classed as one of the oldest cultures on earth. I suppose the main difference with Ireland is we have a recorded history going back well over a 1000 years, this only happened in Aus/NZ when Europeans turned up, which in scheme of things is a pretty recent event!

Yes and No. Aboriginal culture is pretty non-existent in the mainstay of Australian life. Of course one can seek such an experience in say NT or WA but seeking out an indigenous culture that is pretty primitive and say its very cultural is missing the point. One doesn't go the North Pole and say "Look an Eskimo clubbing a seal" and then go on and say the North Pole has culture.

This is one aspect where NZ totally wins, is their inclusion of Maori culture into mainstream NZ culture and society. However Maori culture is not NZ culture. It is one aspect of it and a very potent and strong element of it but not the whole picture.

There are plenty of insular cultures that have their own unique elements, but that is what was refered to.
Aboriginal culture may or may not be classed as one of the oldest cultures on earth. It has nothing to do with New Zealand

In this context, culture refers to the events and life in NZ. I can't comment directly as I've never lived there, but for example in sydney there is very little indigenous culture on a day to day basis, so the fact that its one of the oldest is irrelevant.

I don't agree that there is no culture btw, I'm not even sure what "culture" is supposed to be. I just know that its most definitely modern australia - which suits me fine

Exactly! Culture is different things to different people. My observation of NZ is that it has a great culture of taking it easy, having a nice outdoor life, going to a random event now and again, wine tasting etc. For some people that sounds like a dream. For others their worst nightmare. What NZ lacks is a culture of critical thought, arts, literature, decent media, etc.

To get an insight into this just get the daily newspapers. Say The Press. 90% of the stories in there are ripped off AP or Reuters. About have of it is Ads. Very little in the way good news stories or critical analysis on what is going on in the world or NZ. I know I am not the only one that says this about NZ, go to British ex-pats or emigratenz.com and you have many there shocked at the lack of "culture".

To others this is a dream as their stress and worries are reduced to nothing, to others they just cant handle it. I know that if I were to move back there one day which I hope to do it would be my 2nd biggest fear of me hatting the place. 1st being $hite wages and expensive cost of living.

jackbhoy

Yes and No. Aboriginal culture is pretty non-existent in the mainstay of Australian life. Of course one can seek such an experience in say NT or WA but seeking out an indigenous culture that is pretty primitive and say its very cultural is missing the point. One doesn't go the North Pole and say "Look an Eskimo clubbing a seal" and then go on and say the North Pole has culture.

Mmm, you mentioned in your previous post that you felt, in terms of culture, NZ and Australia lagged behind Ireland but it's to be expected as "ireland is a few thousand years old". As you were indicating that the age of a culture is relevant I simply pointed out that indigineous Aus/NZ culture is also thousands of years old. Not sure what the Eskimo/seal analogy is about really.

jackbhoy

Mellor wrote:

There are plenty of insular cultures that have their own unique elements, but that is what was refered to.
Aboriginal culture may or may not be classed as one of the oldest cultures on earth. It has nothing to do with New Zealand

Jank mentioned both New Zealand and Australia which is why I referred to both Maori and Aboriginal culture.

RobinEire

Well I've done the opposite of most folks and come to Ireland from Australia, why? well I'm from the west of Scotland originally so a choochter at heart and I always planned to come back to the N hemisphere. Australia was good for 20 yrs and I'm glad I emigrated there.

Things I like about Australia, the climate in Spring and Autumn especially, Summer is too hot for me and I burn badly and look like a lobster a lot of the time. Easy lifestyle, cost of living, outdoor life, water sports, Fruit and veg is great and if you live in the main cities the choice of cuisine is awesome.

Things I wasnt so keen on, there is a fair bit of rascism, Fines and a police force thats main objective seems to be to make money, summer temps, distance from home, sport more important than education. Cost of housing in Sydney was huge.

Zambia

Where did you live here Robin ...?

jank

jackbhoy wrote: »

Mmm, you mentioned in your previous post that you felt, in terms of culture, NZ and Australia lagged behind Ireland but it's to be expected as "ireland is a few thousand years old". As you were indicating that the age of a culture is relevant I simply pointed out that indigineous Aus/NZ culture is also thousands of years old. Not sure what the Eskimo/seal analogy is about really.

This is getting tedious but I will explain.

Western Europe has evolved over centuries to develop their own culture. It was never conquered and colonized by an outside force although Genghis Kan came close. Therefore when I am talking about Ireland I am talking about the evolution of a culture over an extended period of time up to now that still survives to this day.

Trying to compare that with the aboriginal culture that has existed for arguable as long as Ireland but has basically been exhumed from history through colonization is not right. Australia is an anglo/celtic-centric western free market democracy. The indigenous people of Australia have no real say or influence in how the rest of us live at all. That was all I was saying when I mentioned something old. Old does not automatically mean culture.

Eskimo's have been around a long too but I dont think many people will find culture in Greenland or the north pole, unless seal clubbing is a past time of yours.

RobinEire

Zambia wrote: »

Where did you live here Robin ...?

G,day, I lived at Kurnell near Sydney and worked on the tugboats there

jackbhoy

jank wrote: »

jackbhoy wrote: »

Mmm, you mentioned in your previous post that you felt, in terms of culture, NZ and Australia lagged behind Ireland but it's to be expected as "ireland is a few thousand years old". As you were indicating that the age of a culture is relevant I simply pointed out that indigineous Aus/NZ culture is also thousands of years old. Not sure what the Eskimo/seal analogy is about really.

This is getting tedious but I will explain.

Western Europe has evolved over centuries to develop their own culture. It was never conquered and colonized by an outside force although Genghis Kan came close. Therefore when I am talking about Ireland I am talking about the evolution of a culture over an extended period of time up to now that still survives to this day.

Trying to compare that with the aboriginal culture that has existed for arguable as long as Ireland but has basically been exhumed from history through colonization is not right. Australia is an anglo/celtic-centric western free market democracy. The indigenous people of Australia have no real say or influence in how the rest of us live at all. That was all I was saying when I mentioned something old. Old does not automatically mean culture.

Eskimo's have been around a long too but I dont think many people will find culture in Greenland or the north pole, unless seal clubbing is a past time of yours.

You are right, it is getting tedious and I really don't have a strong opinion on the topic but you are misrepresenting what I said and contradicting yourself with last couple of posts.

I didn't say old=cultured, you said this in your post when you mentioned Ireland had more culture, probably because it is older, all I said was that this is factually incorrect, which it is. You seem to be saying a cultures age is irrelevant now, if that's the case you are only disagreeing with yourself .

Mellor

jackbhoy wrote: »

You are right, it is getting tedious and I really don't have a strong opinion on the topic but you are misrepresenting what I said and contradicting yourself with last couple of posts.

I didn't say old=cultured, you said this in your post when you mentioned Ireland had more culture, probably because it is older, all I said was that this is factually incorrect, which it is. You seem to be saying a cultures age is irrelevant now, if that's the case you are only disagreeing with yourself .

He is saying that just because there WAS a culture 1000s of years ago, doesn't mean it is a cultural society today.

Is there a point to this conversation?

jackbhoy

Mellor wrote: »

jackbhoy wrote: »

You are right, it is getting tedious and I really don't have a strong opinion on the topic but you are misrepresenting what I said and contradicting yourself with last couple of posts.

I didn't say old=cultured, you said this in your post when you mentioned Ireland had more culture, probably because it is older, all I said was that this is factually incorrect, which it is. You seem to be saying a cultures age is irrelevant now, if that's the case you are only disagreeing with yourself .

He is saying that just because there WAS a culture 1000s of years ago, doesn't mean it is a cultural society today.

Is there a point to this conversation?

I give up. I pointed out a factual inaccuracy made by Jank when he said Irelands culture is older than Aus/NZ, that's all I did, I didn't argue that age of culture is relevant to discussion at all, so don't know why both you and he need to point this argument out to me. Smug, irrelevant analogies that contraditct his original statement kind of baffle me as well.

Anyway, I'll bow out of this discussion as you are right, there is no point!

jank

jackbhoy wrote: »

You are right, it is getting tedious and I really don't have a strong opinion on the topic but you are misrepresenting what I said and contradicting yourself with last couple of posts.

I didn't say old=cultured, you said this in your post when you mentioned Ireland had more culture, probably because it is older, all I said was that this is factually incorrect, which it is. You seem to be saying a cultures age is irrelevant now, if that's the case you are only disagreeing with yourself .

Sigh: Did you read what I said about the colonization part of Ireland and Australia. I did clarify that point. Maybe I should have been more specific in my original post but I didn't think one would be so pedantic about it.

I give up. I pointed out a factual inaccuracy made by Jank when he said Irelands culture is older than Aus/NZ, that's all I did, I didn't argue that age of culture is relevant to discussion at all, so don't know why both you and he need to point this argument out to me. Smug, irrelevant analogies that contraditct his original statement kind of baffle me as well.

Anyway, I'll bow out of this discussion as you are right, there is no point!

Its not inaccurate its the truth. If NZ was ruled in much the same manner as say Fiji or PNG then you may have a point but NZ is 80% white anglo-celtic so its not! Australia is even more so.

It is not a hard concept to grasp tbh. Not my fault you cant understand it.

kiwipower

jank wrote: »

Sigh: Did you read what I said about the colonization part of Ireland and Australia. I did clarify that point. Maybe I should have been more specific in my original post but I didn't think one would be so pedantic about it.



Its not inaccurate its the truth. If NZ was ruled in much the same manner as say Fiji or PNG then you may have a point but NZ is 80% white anglo-celtic so its not! Australia is even more so.

It is not a hard concept to grasp tbh. Not my fault you cant understand it.

The majority of New Zealand's population is of European descent (69 percent), with the indigenous Māori being the largest minority (14.6 percent), followed by Asians (9.2 percent) and non-Māori Polynesians (6.9 percent). This is reflected in immigration, with most new migrants coming from the United Kingdom and Ireland, although the numbers from Asia are increasing. In 2001 an estimated 460,000 New Zealanders live abroad, mostly in Australia, representing nearly one-quarter of the highly-skilled worker force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

Less than 70% of New Zealanders are of European Descent. This also includes those of continental European descent so therefore we are NOT 80% "White" of English Irish descent.

You are defining what is and what is not culture by your own definition. You CANNOT state categorically that one culture is more or less than any other culture.

Panthro

So..
How IS life in NZ?!
I'm half taking notions of jumping ship over to NZ, purely because of the whole Christchurch rebuilding, hoping that little bit of Autocad exp and that nearly finished degree in building surveying would see me through to an amazing life.
But I won't hold my breath at the same time!:)

kiwipower

Apologies for earlier rant.
I don't know why but the comments and argument between Jank and Jackboy have gotten my back up from the very first post.

pclancy

Life in NZ is good now that Spring is within sight....lovely blue skies again today in welly. There were a few weeks recently where I didnt see the sun at all and wondered if it had been blown away! Roll on warmer days and daylight savings which will mean bbqs and balcony beers again

jank

kiwipower wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

Less than 70% of New Zealanders are of European Descent. This also includes those of continental European descent so therefore we are NOT 80% "White" of English Irish descent.

Em no this is wrong and a play with stats, maybe not your fault though.

You will see by that link that I will give you that 67% of Kiwis described themselves as European while another 11% described themselves as New Zealander. How can one be an ethnic New Zealander? Well there was an email campaign in the lead up to the 2006 census to encourage people to put down New Zealander as ones ethnicity as token of patriotism for NZ.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10370546

Hence why the 2006 stats or so ****ed up.

So looking back to 2001 we see that 81% of the population of NZ is European the vast vast majority of them white Anglo-Celtic.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/ethnic-groups-in-new-zealand.aspx

So we can settle on 78%.

Thats the problem with google/wikipedia, you actually have to put a few minutes of time to actually read what you are referencing.

You are defining what is and what is not culture by your own definition. .

No I am not. Oxfords take on it.

1. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively

2. the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society

I think I have put forward a fairly good argument on what is culture but not as concise as the oxford dictionary.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/culture

You CANNOT state categorically that one culture is more or less than any other culture

:Faceplam: I didn't and don't so not sure why you are getting all 'emotional' about this. I think you are confusing my references to historical facts and events to my own beliefs. Where did I say that culture A is better than culture B?

Apologies for earlier rant.
I don't know why but the comments and argument between Jank and Jackboy have gotten my back up from the very first post.

Its OK, Think its a Kiwi trait. Say anything remotely negative about the place to a Kiwi (and I have experienced this first hand) they get mighty defensive about it, but defensive as in "Your just wrong" not a "Your wrong for these reasons: reason a, b, c".

Irish people will generally encourage people to say bad things about Ireland!:rolleyes:
Id rather the Kiwi way tbh!:)

jank

On a side note if the mods want to stop this now then thats all good. Just think that this debate is an interesting one and a little better than talking about the weather as 50% of this thread can testify to.

Would be nice to have some controversial topics brought up rather then the usual "find me a visa", "find me a flight" type threads. Might generate some interest.

pclancy

I don't think the ethnic distribution of population or its culture, or lack thereof is that interesting but yeah anythings better then talking about the weather! Neither NZ or Austrailia really lead the world with culture do they, its more about just enjoying life and nature when possible.

jank

pclancy wrote: »

I don't think the ethnic distribution of population or its culture, or lack thereof is that interesting but yeah anythings better then talking about the weather! Neither NZ or Austrailia really lead the world with culture do they, its more about just enjoying life and nature when possible.

Yea, not sure how we got talking about this but these things take on a life of their own. The last statement is spot on.