Don’t Move to New Zealand

Continuing in our series of Migrant Stories: first hand accounts of migrant life in New Zealand, taken from locations around the net.

This recent story is from the discussion forum Expatexposed. It tells how grinding penny pinching becomes a way of life in NZ with nothing to compensate it, rather than a short term measure to get ahead. The poster also tells of how carefully ‘Brand New Zealand’ is manipulated to attract people who turn out to be unsuitable migrants:

I am so tired of Kiwis making a virtue of necessity. They should be honest that THAT is what it is – making do on a cute remote island. Nothing more than that. Not an arcane “lifestyle” to be aspired to (cue: clink wineglass of Sauvignon Blanc, look out to blue water, flash impossibly white teeth at partner that you would never see on a Kiwi because most of them don’t do dental).

There’s nothing here to compensate for the forced pennypinching – little opportunity, no rich culture, you can’t easily travel to other places for a change – nothing. The government and migration agencies are dressing New Zealand up and not being honest about what it is really like here – THAT is my biggest gripe.

If you are rich, boaty and/or fetishize nature, you will LOVE it here, and you won’t have to make sacrifices, or the sacrifices may well be worth it. I am not rich, boaty and do not fetishize nature.

I DO wear woolly socks and jumpers inside, and I did that before I came here. I shop secondhand “just because it is sensible”. I make food from scratch. I totally agree – it’s sensible and no less, regardless. I have NEVER had central heating or double-glazed windows in any house I have lived in, though I aspired to such back home where I was able to afford to buy my own house. I used to put thermal plastic sheeting on my windows to keep warm in winter. I will hunt that stuff down for this year in NZ if I haven’t been able to leave by winter. At home, I had a gas furnace (not a standalone heater) and my heating was, under a special distributive program where they spread the money out for winter heating to summer months so you don’t get these big lumps to pay in winter) about 80 a month USD (that’s about, what, 100 NZD?). Just to give you a comparison.

The difference is that back there, I lived this same way and was able to save money and get ahead by being frugal. I could afford better food and I didn’t have to darn big holes in socks. I’d darn a little hole or two and then when the socks persisted in developing more holes, I would give them away to the local animal shelter inside a pillowcase for the animals to use. I had money to travel and visit people.

I’ve lived frugally before – and was able to GET AHEAD by doing so. I was able to save thousands a year doing that. Here, you are FORCED to live that way just to keep your head above water, and you are lucky if you can save anything. Maybe some year upward mobility will pull you into its wake if you can catch the wave at the right time…you can only climb the rungs of the ladder with great difficulty in New Zealand, and just hope you don’t have a setback that sends you back to START. It’s easy to have that happen to you if you have no family here to cushion your setbacks for you.

I do not consider that the people of New Zealand are beneath me. I perceive that they “make do” valiantly with what they have. I have seen them be amazingly creative making good useful things out of nothing. The housewives use everything but the squeal. Jesus, do I have to want to live like that, though? This is admirable, and I’d do it if I had to, but why pay out the nose to do that? Kiwis are both shaped and limited by having to live that way. They don’t have time for intellectual pursuits? Just LIVING here occupies enough of their effort, so ok, it’s understandable (Google “culture of New Zealand”, “anti-intellectualism” if you think I am being a snob). People have crafted the Wiki entry to reflect reality, better, I think, since I came over some years ago, and I think prospective migrants should read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_New_Zealand#Anti-intellectualism (See below*)
I don’t think you’re aware of how carefully they manipulate Brand New Zealand to attract people who in actuality turn out to be highly unsuitable migrants. That’s where I perceive my fight to be on EE, is representing the reality of New Zealand as I personally experienced it, as one of those unsuitable migrants, so I can prevent other people from making the same mistake I did. It’s the only way I can make lemonade out of my own lemons! That’s why many of the members post here – they are either venting or making sure the downside gets “out there”, hoping that googlers will be able to find and read it through all the net-bombing by “paradise”-mongers who are trying to represent New Zealand as a place that it is NOT.”

*Anti-intellectualism in NZ (Wikipedia)

Unlike many European countries, but in common with other ‘Anglo’ countries such as Britain, the United States and Australia, New Zealanders do not have a particularly high regard for intellectual activity, particularly if it is more theoretical than practical. This is linked with the idea of ‘kiwi ingenuity’ (see above), which supposes that all problems are better solved by seeing what works than by applying a theory.

This distrust of theory manifested itself in social policy of the early and mid twentieth century, which historian Michael Bassett described as ’socialism without doctrines’: although the policies of the first Labour and other governments pursued traditionally socialist goals, they were not based on any coherent theory. A major break with this tradition came in the 1980s when the fourth Labour and fourth National governments enacted a series of reforms based on free market ideology.

This reinforced many New Zealanders’ distrust of intellectual theory, as many consider that the reforms increased poverty and inequality in New Zealand. Despite the prevailing mood of anti-intellectualism, New Zealand has reasonably high rates of participation in tertiary education and has produced a number of internationally renowned scholars and scientists, including Ernest Rutherford, J.G.A. Pocock and Alan MacDiarmid. It should be noted that both Rutherford and Pocock spent most of their professional lives in Britain. For many years this was a common occurrence, and a consequence both of New Zealanders’ attitudes and the low population which made it hard to support major research.

Attribution

Because New Zealanders often have to relocate to achieve worldwide fame and fortune, New Zealanders are keen to claim famous people as being New Zealanders, however short their residency in New Zealand might have been.

While people born in New Zealand are certainly identified as New Zealanders, those who attended a New Zealand school or resided in New Zealand also qualify, irrespective of national origin. This sometimes leads to famous people and innovations being identified as coming from both New Zealand and another country—such as the pop group Crowded House, the race horse Phar Lap and the actor Russell Crowe, all of whom have been associated with Australia and New Zealand.

Because the measure of New Zealand success was often how well a person did internationally, anything from ‘Overseas’ is seen as holding more cultural capital than the local equivalent, regardless of its quality.

This means that New Zealanders are often lured to the performances of “international acts”. This is exacerbated by New Zealand’s isolation and small population causing it to be skipped by the international tours of all but the most commercially successful musicians and performers. The flipside to this phenomenon is that famous people from overseas can be quickly embraced by New Zealanders if they visit regularly or for an extended period or claim an affinity with the country.”

  1. staedtler
    March 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm | #1

    http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3355/features/2475/the_unfriendly_isles.html
    “We invite them to live here, then set them up for failure. Immigrants and refugees have a tough time settling in New Zealand, and it’s costing them – and us – dearly”

    “New Zealand has never been particularly welcoming to immigrants, but a National Business Review-Phillip Fox poll this month suggested that attitudes of ordinary New Zealanders to non-white immigrants are hardening.”

    “The requirements for immigration and the requirements for registration [as a teacher] are very different and it’s never been made explicit. So they come here on the basis of their teaching qualifications and can’t register. We suspect it’s the same with other qualifications, particularly those with a registration component, such as engineering.”

    Although politicians attack migrants for “taking taxpayers for a ride” by claiming sickness and hardship benefits, a recent Victoria University survey found that a majority of New Zealanders are accepting of immigrants, but they have little to do with them. Those at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap who have most contact with them often perceive them as a threat. Chile was called in recently to sort out a dispute for an African migrant family who bought a house in South Auckland. “The people next door set the dog on the woman of the house and the children have been beaten up.”

  2. Clampett
    March 19, 2011 at 4:32 am | #2

    Kiwis don’t do dental is right. We have never seen so many yellow rotting teeth on otherwise fairly attractive specimens when young, even if genetically not very diverse examples of humanity collectively
    Statistics -
    1 out of 6 New Zealanders dislike cleaning their teeth
    82 percent don’t floss!!!!!!
    3/4 of them don’t use daily mouthwash.
    Meanwhile, almost 1 in 3 New Zealand men say they have felt pressured to have sex or did so unwillingly, shirk household chores, yet they were voted the 8th best lovers in the world. And they shout awful things at pretty birds on the street (Faris)get publicly drunk and brawl. And have skin cancer.

    So many of the choice men have buggered off to other places, leaving the dregs to act however they please and be as feral as they want to be because they know the sex ratio is in their favour. Do not come to Aotearoa for the hot blokes.

  3. P Ray
    March 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm | #3

    Well, many of the NZ blokes go with what works. From what I saw going to town over Thursday and Saturday after classes at the University were done, the good and respectful men were ignored. The snippy, arrogant and “of-limited-vocabulary” specimens were the ones never going dateless or without female companionship.
    So the NZ women cannot really claim that they are hard done by, they created and enforce this type of masculinity by refusing to date Asian guys of good character, and by engaging in displays of mock horror or relational aggression against those good men when their bad behaviour is pointed out to them.

  4. Clampett
    March 20, 2011 at 9:18 am | #4

    P Ray – Water finds its own level. ;)

    And what you say -that is partially a language problem, but also a cultural INSULARITY problem. We know a researcher who belongs to a plethora of health- and medicine-related Internet forums with large numbers of international members, and he told me that Kiwis high five one another a lot on the forums, and cluster together or with Aussies on these forums, not interacting as comfortably with non-Kiwis. Their society is like a stamping machine, producing rigidly stamped citizens who seem to interact in prescribed ways to a greater extent than other societies we have lived in. Many immigrants have remarked that “Kiwis with OE are easier to get along with”. This is true. The more OE they have, the less stamped they are, and the more perspective they have developed. I cannot imagine why you would even want to date a Kiwi anyway. They only drag you down and suck you dry, one way or the other.

  5. pence pincher toe stubber
    March 31, 2011 at 9:32 am | #5

    Have a laugh at them talking about food shock on this forum:
    http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=698667#post9068814
    The exhortations to feel more moralistic paying those higher Kiwi prices ring very false. You pay higher prices because it’s not off the backs of the Third World? No. Those who think progressive attitudes and organics reign in New Zealand are wrong.

    And here, negativity:
    http://www.emigratenz.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-16887.html
    If you don’t unquestioningly embrace New Zealand, you are manic-depressive. But this poster’s comment was especially insightful and kind:

    wiki
    16th March 2008, 11:33 AM
    Somebody saying they are not happy in their surroundings does not make them a manic depressive.
    You can become depressed by living in a place you don’t like, but it takes certain hardwiring in your brain to bring the mania associated with manic depression. It’s not a title that should be pinned on people who are a bit sad.
    NZ is English speaking, it has a relatively good crime rate, democratically elected leadership and reasonable economy.
    But of all the countries in the world that could put their hands up and say they also have those points, NZ is the most extreme.
    I truly believe moving from the UK to France would be less of a jump for a lot of people than moving UK to NZ. Sure you wouldn’t know the language, but a lot of other things would be very simple, and you’d still be just a couple of hours to home.
    NZ is extrmeme:
    - it’s a small economy with limited buying power on the world markets.
    - It has a terrible national transport structure (something that didn’t bother me until I moved to UK)
    - Transport costs inflate the cost of all imported goods
    - The lack of economic oomph puts the dollar more at the mercy of other countries that some nations suffer
    - interest rates are highest in the OECD – great if you have UK house funds to invest, but no good if you want a mortgage.
    - house prices are disproportionate after they became the most tempting form of investment following stock market instability.
    - Airline charges are disproportionate to flights originating from other countries, again because the population base is small and therefore fewer people fly from here.
    But those aren’t things immigrants tend to consider. Many see the lack of people and isolation from world issues a bonus. But the utopian view can turn very sour for people who don’t have the financial means to cushion them from the extra costs in NZ.
    And if you have a big dream and it doesn’t turn out the way you planned, then you’ll either feel very stupid, or very angry – and angry people spout off.
    NZ can be the most amazing place in the world for some people, and for others it’s an episode of Hustle – they saw the shiny, but when they held it in their hands they felt ripped off.
    For the record, I’m a NZer back after 10 years in the UK. I love many, many things about NZ and was aware of the negative points in comparison to the UK. My OH and I aren’t certain we’ll be staying more than a couple of years. We miss the travel and history opportunities in the UK – which we both knew would be a big issue for the way we are used to living.
    We’ll work out what’s best for us – but we came into this with our eyes truly open. And a lot immigrants haven’t.
    Don’t be too harsh on those who stub their toes in the dark.

  6. Blues Bro
    April 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm | #6

    I hate that they throw so much crap out about other countries, but when you say the smallest thing about their own one, they are all over you like gravy on rice.

    Remember Wales and All Blacks in 2008. The Welsh team stood there after the Haka to quietly challenge them back instead of retreating in respect for it or whatever craven move they were supposed to do. The Kiwis, accustomed to their bully permit for life, went on like big babies about being dissed by the Welsh because they stood there. They think they are the only ones who should be allowed to dish it.

  7. new arrival
    April 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm | #7

    Question for anyone who reads this blog it standard here to ask for 6 weeks rent as a bond and 2 weeks rent ahead of time before even moving into a place? how common is an amount like this?this seems so much!

    • P Ray
      April 5, 2011 at 10:45 pm | #8

      It’s common. The department of housing in NZ has forms you can fill up. 6 weeks is the maximum bond you can charge. MAKE SURE the person you are paying to is the legal owner/authority to collect the rent on the property you are planning to live in! Have your signature on the bond form, DO NOT let only one person be the head tenant. Even if he’s/she’s a kiwi you’ve known from “way back” who thinks of you as a “cuzzy bro”.

  8. new arrival
    April 6, 2011 at 3:12 am | #9

    Thank u, PRay for that advice. And for the information about the bond amt.
    SOmeone else warned me “never do a Kiwi a favor”. They don’t pay them back. They just see you as a sucker. and or conveniently “forget”. I am hearing some scary advice for a newcomer!

  9. August 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm | #10

    What a load of shit!!!
    Honestly!

  10. E2NZ
    August 18, 2011 at 12:11 pm | #11

    Thank you for your comment Chris, does st-theresas.school.nz know you’re mis-using their internet service? Must be a slow day in class today.

    • P Ray
      August 19, 2011 at 4:04 am | #12

      He/She is in the right place at any rate.
      St. Theresa is the patron saint of the people in need of grace.

  11. Hic Kupp
  12. Ditti
    October 30, 2011 at 5:56 pm | #14

    Perhaps it is a matter of presumptions and assumptions being unchecked…
    Accompanying this with the basic “premises” being unchecked as well, the result is a cocktail that surely has a high likelihood to explode in your face sooner or later.

    Fact: This country (i,e, political corporation) has no legitimacy.
    Fact: The presumption of “guilty until proven innocent” existed long before the media decided to dare talk about it recently.
    Fact: All govt forms ask for ‘ethnicity’ and then “Kiwis” (traditionally Pakeha) claim they are not racist but they are the ones responsible for their own forms.

    Fact: The presumption of ownership by the so-called govt, over one’s property, one’s body and one’s life is hardly ever tested in their “courts of commerce”. And when tested they simply ignore that “Justice must be seen in order to be done”.
    Fact: liability is non existent, hence the population learns on a daily basis to behave in like manner to those in power structures.
    Fact: the business commonly known as the Ministry of Justice, does not have the least clue as for what Justice means, given that all judges are political appointees.

    If this still sounds like a “first world country” of sorts, the new-comer-to-be may have great difficulty redefining words.

    However, the men and women of this land (in my own experience), in spite of having learned the wrong methods thru the corrupt education system, seem to be eager to learn how to get out of this european styled, banking ruled, police state and papacy controlled landmass inappropriately and illegitimately referred to as New Zealand.

    Cheers

  13. Iggs W
    October 31, 2011 at 3:02 pm | #15

    http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845375
    You are probably aware of this, but judges in New Zealand do not have to have a law degree. So regardless of any justifications they may have for that policy, people with no knowledge of the law are issuing decisions that make or break people’s lives, and are immune from having those decisions challenged. See 1 March 2008 post on that url.

  14. Ditti
    November 1, 2011 at 2:45 am | #16

    I am unsure as to whether your response, Iggs W, referred somehow to my own recent post in here, but to clarify:
    Judges are Solicitors, they cannot be but Solicitors;
    They are politically appointed, following the recommendations of the so-called ministers of the crown (which is a private corporation) and are appointed by the so-called Governor General in New Zealand who claims to be Queen Elizabeth’s representative BUT only to the extent of any man charging him with the resolution of matters which directly pertain to his alleged title and/or when he is charged to pass specific information to the Queen.
    Furthermore by his own actions, Anand, allegedly of the family Satyanand, allegedly acting as Governor General, has repeatedly shown his incompetence, unwillingness and/or incapacity.

    The fact that these solicitors are part of a secret club that they call the Law Society and that they are trained in procedure, statutes, rules, regulations, bylaws, ordinances and the likes and not in Law, plus their Positive Law (judgy made law) approach, is clearly an undeniable non-sequitur.
    They are part of a legal fraternity that in most instances is unlawful and illegitimate.
    The fact that those who are politically appointed by their own party members (in spite of having no clue as to what is the Law and that they are not required to know the Law) is what makes the whole farce more impenetrable, IMHO.
    Annete (King) and all the other politicians who deal day and night with their own “politricks” and how to manipulate public opinion via unverifiable claims, are just other incompetent men and women who hide behind the “mask of corporatism without liabilities”.

    Please note that all the above-mentioned statements can be proven with factual evidences.

    Cheers

  1. No trackbacks yet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers