So, what was this legal challenge that resulted in the "name must be said aloud" practice?
I asked, and they were quite cagey about it, so... It was voter-eligibility related.
That's the thing that attracted me about TOP - their UBI policy gets rid of all that (it basically removes unemployment as a concept) and reversing it would become a big hurdle for a future government.
I love the concept of a UBI. TOP's UBI is impossible to live on, and would be up to a 30% income cut for some beneficiaries.
Needing to commit benefit fraud to “feed a baby”, is complete bullshit. It might however be the case today, but it wasn’t back then.
I was on a benefit with children in the nineties, and I can remember standing in the kitchen of our tiny ex-state-house rental crying because Plunket was on our case over our baby not gaining weight and I was already spending $20 a week on baby rice and steaming veggies to feed him and it was half our food budget.
We had a panel heater in the bedroom our two kids shared that had a thermostat. I had it set to 12 degrees, because that was as warm as I could afford to run it, and yes it turned on, because the house was so cold. That's not warm enough to keep kids healthy.
We didn't commit benefit fraud, but it wasn't out of ethics, it was out of pure fear. And we did not have enough money to keep our kids healthy.
I wonder, too, if the folk who drafted this clause didn't have precisely these sorts of issues in mind but/and, more particularly, to allow people who might never have resided (in the ordinary sense of the word) in a place but whose turangawaewae might be elsewhere to declare that place as their home and, hence, their place of residence.
The thing about the underlying ethos of the Electoral Commission is that they want to make it as easy as possible for people to vote. They have zero interest in making life difficult for people whose living situations are fluid or difficult or unusual, and if that means also not bothering chasing up a handful of people who've maybe registered in the electorate next door because it's marginal and their isn't, or the thousands of students still registered in their parents' electorates, they don't care.
I just assumed you'd have to vote in the electorate of residence and I guess that's wrong.
"NZ law is fairly flexible around *where* people enrol. As long as they only enrol, vote once, all is good."
The electoral fraud stuff probably came completely unexpected
So I totally understand why people have Issues with this, but it's not electoral fraud. Not according to the Twitters of the Electoral Commission and Phil Lyth of the Electoral Commission, who is my go-to on this stuff. As long as you're only registered to vote in one electorate and you only vote once, they're good. Remember, even homeless people can vote. Nobody cares that they're not actually living at the address they give.
A note for some of the rest of this stuff. My son is a beneficiary, and he lives with his mum. Who is also a beneficiary. It's so not an issue that even WINZ don't care, and yet somehow this is a Thing? Really?
Yeah, there was a time in the early nineties when my partner, who also had a student loan, explained to his W&I guy that, if he worked another hour a week in his part-time job, he would lose money: his real tax rate would pass 100%. The guy said, that can't be right, did the maths there at his desk, discovered it was right, and was furious.
How do they not know? How do they not already know?
Benefit levels were quite deliberately set below subsistence level. Someone did something immoral, and it wasn't Turei.
Sometimes on Facebook threads I do wade in with citations. It likely won't convince the person spouting the crazy, but it does tend to help people wondering if this stuff can be true.
Yeah, this is why I replied to an actual friend of mine on FB sharing a piece asserting that Muslim families in Canada were trying to get pork banned from schools. It was obvious bullshit, and when I googled the name of the town it was supposed to have happened in, autocomplete provided "pork school Snopes".
So I linked to the refutation (not only was it a lie, it was a lie originally told about Belgium), because a) the dude is not an actual idiot, and b) other people were going to see it, and I wanted them to see the challenge as well.
I swear he's not an idiot. We used to go out. But he ARGUED. People should try to fit into the cultures they choose to move to, apparently. I don't like the world any more.
The false claim is that bilingualism (English via CIP and NZSL) will reduce a Deaf child's chance to learn English.
Yeah, this is what we were told when our son was little (though he didn't have a cochlear implant but a Moderate hearing loss): that if he learned to sign, his brain would invest in visual connections and not make auditory connections, and so he would never learn to speak. We had to choose all NZSL or all oral English.
This changed, at least in the van Asch preschool, just a couple of years later, partly as a result of pressure from hearing parents.
As an aside, something that kind of irritated me during the Lions tour, was that the ground announcer at every test would say, the national anthem would be signed on the big screen. Which, yay. But why couldn't the tv audience see it? Couldn't they have cut to it, or put it picture-in-picture during the singing? Would have been nice.
Finding out that “vexatious parents” is in fact a term they use to condemn us all into a single pile of complainers.
Fellow Vexatious Parent high-five.
I think one of the things all the people telling us to chill didn't really get is the necessarily antagonistic relationship you have with government agencies if you have a disability or a disabled child, and you want to get what you're entitled to. I would rather have drunk bubbles in the sun than spend hundreds of hours battling to get my child's needs provided for.