Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to David Hall,
I’m am informed about, attached to and invested in New Zealand society – but can’t for now physically live there. I damn well want my right to vote.
If anyone can present evidence showing that the majority of New Zealand citizens overseas currently denied the right to vote by the 3 year rule do eventually return to New Zealand, I might consider changing my opinion. I’d like to see a chart showing likelihood of return to NZ by years away from NZ. At the point it crosses below (I’ll be generous) 66%, that would be the cutoff for me: if you’ve been away from New Zealand for the length of time after which two-thirds of NZers overseas don’t come back, you’re probably not coming back, so you don’t get to decide what happens here.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Danielle,
I left for four years and my visits back were fleeting, but that didn’t mean I wasn’t invested in my country. I would have been really peeved to have my voting rights removed.
But I'm allowing absences of up to 4 years, so long as you were living here before then. I could probably be persuaded to extend that to 5 years. I think that's more fair than just allowing votes to anyone who's visited in the last 3 years, which, as others have pointed out, is highly dependent on finances and available leave.
If I understand correctly, lots of you are arguing that voting should be allowed to any New Zealand citizen, anywhere, (plus anyone who lives in New Zealand without a mandated exit date.)
I just don't think there's anything very magic about citizenship. There are lots of people who happen to be New Zealand citizens but who don't consider themselves New Zealanders; and lots of people who consider themselves New Zealanders who for one reason or another aren't or can't be citizens. According to your argument, someone who lived in NZ from the age of, say, 2, and who is a permanent resident but not a citizen, but who's overseas studying for a few years with no funds for holidays home, couldn't vote - but my aforementioned cousin could.
Maybe you think the permanent resident should be able to vote too? OK, let's change the example to someone who lives in NZ from the age of 2 on a resident visa, and who thus loses the right to return to NZ as soon as they leave the country, but they'll probably apply for and get a visa to return once they've finished studying overseas. I'd say this person has a better argument to be able to vote here than my cousin, wouldn't you? I'm not arguing that this person should be able to vote, but I am arguing that my cousin shouldn't - and that therefore it's not citizenship alone which should dictate the right of people overseas to vote in NZ elections.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to izogi,
(Home insulation being a flagship one, until National canned it.)
National haven't canned it, yet. It just has more limited availability, and is now just insulation rather than clean heating as well. It probably won't run for much longer though, so if you're eligible, get in quick!
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to BenWilson,
their right to vote is not something to take away lightly.
But their current right to vote in NZ elections only exists because of where we happened to draw the voting line in the past, it's not some fundamental inalienable right.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says
"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."However, the UDHR doesn't specify what country "his country" is, nor who "the people" are whose will shall be the basis of the authority of government. As a country, we draw a line somewhere between everyone in the world having the right to vote in NZ elections, and noone in the world having the right to vote in NZ elections, and right now we've decided that it's people who have the right to live here without any expiry date, and who have been here some time in the last 3 years. I'm arguing that we've got that line wrong.
On the prisoner front though, I entirely agree that prisoners not being allowed to vote is an injustice that must be righted.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
But it’s not about citizenship, it’s about deciding how the country should be run.
My cousin is a New Zealand citizen, by accident of birth – my uncle and aunt had come out to New Zealand for a couple of years to visit family and have an OE, and happened to have my cousin while they were here. She last came on a family visit when she was about 6. Now, my cousin is lovely, and if she wanted to come to New Zealand and live here, I’d be very happy about that, but I don’t think she should have the right to vote here.
Citizenship is a combination of birth, and roots, and identity, but it doesn’t have to have anything to do with voting.
Yes, expats may have investments or debts here, but again, I don’t see financial interests as having anything to do with the right to vote. There are plenty of citizens of other countries who own property or shares in New Zealand, but I wouldn’t see that as giving them voting rights. Nor would I say that someone who happens to be on their (less than 4 year) OE during an election or two but has managed to avoid leaving any debt behind, and hasn’t accumulated any assets should be denied the right to vote just because they don’t have a financial interest in the country. So financial interest =/= voting interest.those of us who are intending to return, do have a vested interest in what kind of country we come back to.
But what you’re talking about is the ‘myth of return’, common to migrants worldwide. People who have migrated shouldn’t get to decide how the rest of live in the meantime just because they might come back one day.
I can’t honestly think of any jobs that would allow you to take off 3 months at a time.
But I'm not talking about people taking time out for 3 months or so. I'm talking about 3 months as a decent indicator fo whether someone has actually been 'living in' New Zealand during the electoral cycle. I'd be happy to make it 6 months if it would make it clearer that that's what I meant.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Amy Gale,
Amy, I completely understand that a couple of weeks is all the time off most of us get; however, whether it’s precious or not, I’d hazard that visiting for Christmas or a wedding is what most visits “home” from New Zealanders overseas are, and yes, “jetting back” does eat a huge portion of most people’s disposable income. I don’t mean to be dismissive about the expense and effort involved to do it. I do mean to be dismissive of it giving people the right to vote. If that’s the extent of the time someone’s spent here in the last 3 years, they don’t live here, so why should they be allowed to vote here? It's not like the outcome of the election affects their day to day life.
-
It may favour the wealthy, but I wouldn’t want to see the arrangement changed so that any New Zealander elsewhere could vote here. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to limit the choice on who is going to make decisions about what happens in New Zealand to people who live in New Zealand. If anything, I’d reduce the 3-year limit, rather than extend voting rights.
Alternatively, I might consider extending it to 4 years if the requirement wasn’t just for a visit, but for the person to have actually spent a meaningful length of time here during that previous 4 years. Jetting back for a couple of weeks for a family Christmas or wedding doesn’t really cut it. I’d go for a requirement to have spent 3 months or more (at a stretch, not total) here in the previous 4 years in order to be allowed to vote here. -
Oh Dear God (wrong thread, I know) please, please don't let this descend into a World Trade Centre Conspiracy Thread. There are so many, many other places people can have that argument.
-
Hard News: But seriously, drug policy, in reply to nzlemming,
Remember, the Lancet published Wakefield’s MMR nonsense as well as much reputable stuff.
The Lancet remembers it as well as you do. The controls put in place to prevent a similar embarassment are extensive (and, if you're trying to get a paper published, tiresome, even though you understand why they're there).
-
When you say "actually have to visit the country in order to vote", I assume you're referring to the need to have visited New Zealand in the last 3 years (if a citizen) or the last 12 months (if a permanent resident)?
Just in case you're not - you don't have to be in New Zealand to vote: you can vote from overseas, instructions here.