“New Zealand shows scenery does not pay for much”


Dairying is a gross polluter in NZ

New Zealand’s scenery and green image is a draw card used to entice people to live in a country miles from anywhere. It’s used a foil to counter low wages and high prices, and to create the impression that the country is a mini-paradise welcoming hard working migrants.

If that strikes a chord with you, read this feature in the Australian Herald Sun News on 17 February 2014, you may see the country differently afterwards.

Country has no future
I COULD live here, I thought last month, as I drove through one of the world’s most beautiful countries. One day, I had a beach of seals to my left and snowy mountains to my right. Another, a ferry took me through a deep sound as glorious as any in Norway.

But I can’t live in lovely New Zealand, for much the same reason an astonishing 650,000 New Zealanders live here instead, leaving just 4.4 million back home…”

See, a country that can’t give its young a future has no future itself. And having also just inspected the dead canary called Tasmania, I’m desperate we learn that lesson.

Sure, New Zealand isn’t a basket case. It’s growing, and its unemployment rate is only a bit over ours. It’s bigger problem is that it is small and remote, and without two pieces of luck that saved us — coal and iron ore…” more here

Of course, what he can’t see is that New Zealand’s coal and iron ore are called dairy and tourism. The first creates pollution that renders its waterways little more than open sewers and contaminates drinking water with crypto and other zoonotic diseases. The second is budget and lacking in lustre, with a government constantly trying to work out how to milk that too.


13 thoughts on ““New Zealand shows scenery does not pay for much”

  1. Vince- I got asked several times in Dunedin if it was like Edinburgh, some people really believed they were identical, as ‘Dunedin was modelled on Edinburgh’ how do you answer that without offending the twisted identity created by lies they live under? They are just clueless and they know it

  2. There is no denying that New Zealand has some nice scenery, but to pretend that it is the best the world has to offer is simply a farce.

    The Southern Alps DO NOT compare to the Swiss Alps.
    The Desert Road area DOES NOT compare to the deserts of Saudi Arabia
    The 14 forest parks of New Zealand DO NOT compare to the splendor of the Amazon Basin.
    The caves of Waitomo DO NOT compare to Mammoth Cave National Park.
    The Rotorua thermal area DOES NOT compare to Yellowstone National Park.
    And finally, the cities of Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland DO NOT compare to cities such as Paris, London and New York.

    The only advantage New Zealand really has is that it has a great variety of nice scenery within a small area, but you still have to travel all the way to NZ in the first place. However, to see the best the world has to offer you have to go elsewhere.

    New Zealand may have nice scenery:

    But other places are STUNNING in their beauty:

    PS: Try both these videos in HD for full effect.

    • I wholeheartedly agree with you Vince. New Zealand has some nice and especially diverse scenery, but not of it is as spectacular as most Kiwis would lead you to believe.

      I lived in Alaska for several years and I had the privilege to explore the North (Alaska, Yukon, Northern British Columbia) in full. It was far prettier and on a vaster scale than New Zealand.

      I now live in Switzerland and whilst I prefer the more unspoiled mountain scenery, I also love the picturesque and well maintained villages here compared to the dilapidated and cheap Kiwi weatherboard houses and poorly maintained lawns.

      Those in Europe can find much more spectacular scenery taking half as much time to fly to Alaska as flying to the bottom of the world to bogan land.

  3. We left New Zealand some years ago. My daughter and I watched Top of the Lake the other night, and kept clapping our hands to our mouths at how realistically New Zealand society’s gender tensions were portrayed. Feral men and brutal secrets. As they say, lovely scenery, shame about the inhabitants.

  4. New Zealand’s message to the world about the scenery is crap! There’s only so much sustenance one can derive from ‘the scenery.’ It’s a shitty little hell hole at the arse end of the world inhabited by savages who scream out ‘bro’ and become insulted when you explain that you’re no relation to them, whatsoever… I’m not sure why I stay here, it’s terribly uncultured and mind numbingly boring – you see oriental immigrants running down to the Hutt river and throwing themselves off the weir never to be seen again because they have realised the extreme error they made in coming here – I cycle down to the river every weekend to watch. I can’t help thinking what their parents have to say???

  5. Very interesting comment for that article:

    AJ of Here replied to Arch
    Mon 17 Feb 14 (12:14pm)

    Arch, NZ exploits those migrants.

    They advertise about how pretty the country is and how friendly the locals are, but neglect to mention that the “friendly” locals would rather go without than to hire a “migrant with no NZ experience” (“no NZ experience” being their most often used excuse not to hire, as if NZ experience is somehow, in some nebulous way, worth more than real world experience).

    Once the migrants arrive, they take their money via forcing them to buy businesses (if the migrant is a business migrant) that is guaranteed to make a loss (due to the local game of “boycott the migrant business”), via selling them badly built homes (see “leaky houses”) at inflated prices, and a myriad of other ways. All without helping or supporting the migrant in any way. And all the while, the locals will be sniping at the migrants, moaning about how rich they are, how they have flash houses and cars, etc., as if the migrant did not earn those riches, as if those riches should belong to the locals by some sort of Divine Right.

    So yes, I support your final statement (albeit for different reasons): Boycott all NZ products! It lives on the back of the economic slavery of migrants and should be boycotted until restitution is made.

  6. Coal and iron ore really didn’t ‘save’ Australia, the effect of mineral exports was an appreciating dollar which has probably ruined what’s left of manufacturing in Oz, our present conservative government has no clues apart from forcing down wages and conditions. Like Kiwis we’re certainly going to pay the price, environmentally, for the export boom, there are significant similarities between the two countries.

    The catastrophe for NZ will occur if the Australian economy experiences a period of ‘structural adjustment’ with the usual welfare cuts and unemployment, and a sizeable proportion of Australia’s 650,000 resident Kiwis return home.

    In my opinion the only practical course is for NZ to join the Australian Federation, however given recent opinion polls, that seems a remote possibility. Of course, the Kiwis could discover a 50 billion barrel oil field and millions of poverty stricken Australians will want to move to NZ.

    • You are absolutely right. The first stage of the mining boom (construction phase) is what brings in the most revenue to the country, as the boom requires masse of workers to set up the mines and transport infrastructure. However, once the construction phase is over, a mine can operate with very few employees. In fact, only about 1.5% of the Australian workforce is in mining and media exaggerate the benefits to the local economy. The profits from the mining activities end up largely offshore. In fact, the benefits to Australian superannuation funds tend to be minimal because miners tend not to pay much in dividends.

      Australia and New Zealand suffer economic sclerosis because the economic history of both countries is one where someone digs something out of the ground or plants something and then exports it. The majority of value added occurs offshore. Both countries are largely devoid of any internationally competitive sectors aside from agriculture and mining, which do not employ many people, and the population rely on debt to live beyond their means. Moreover, the productivity is shockingly low in both countries. Improving productivity does not mean cutting wages, but rather, working more efficiently, innovating more, and cutting waste. Unfortunately, the Kiwi and Aussie mentality is unable to comprehend this. I agree that New Zealand’s best bet is to join Australia, but Kiwi pride will prevent this from happening.

      Lastly, I think the biggest problem in New Zealand is that the country and its people actively punish achievement and excellence. Tall poppy syndrome is a disease that will mow down the perpetrators after they are done finishing off its victims.

      • “Unfortunately, the Kiwi and Aussie mentality is unable to comprehend this.”

        That’s a generalisation, many Australians understand what’s needed, and I’d bet many Kiwis as well, the problem is the prevailing neo-liberal ideology.

        • Clearly, sizeable majorities have elected very subpar calibre people into positions of power in both New Zealand and Australia. I do not blame capitalism, but rather cronyism and the Socialist mentality of the antipodeans.

      • Many of the miners are from other countries (many of them from New Zealand – I remember many leaving to work in the new mines just in my area. It was that or AKL or WELL, nothing anywhere else except agriculture and tourism) and will probably leave Oz for other opportunities once the jobs dry up. One more reason they don’t want to offer welfare benefits to Kiwis.

  7. I like new zealand, but not so much. sure it is beautiful, but it wasn’t the center of civilization, so there were not so many old buildings like europe or asia since it was the last area to be populated by humans.

Comments are closed.