Latest news with #DepartmentofInternalAffairs
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
No baby Santa? These 10 baby names are banned in the US
Looking for a unique name to give your baby that would help them stand out in a crowd? While the sky is (nearly) the limit, it's best to avoid these 10 offensive or confusing names that are banned in the U.S. Japan has recently banned what is known as "shiny" or "glittery" names, which are names with unusual pronunciations, according to The Guardian. These names could include anything from Pikachu to Nike, according to CNN. But Japan isn't the only country to have banned baby names. The U.S. is more relaxed on naming protocol than other countries, but there are still some rules. Some states have stricter naming laws, and other states don't have any, but there are still some names that have been ruled by courts in the U.S. as illegal. While your child might seem like royalty to you, it's best to avoid naming them King or Queen, as those names have been banned in the U.S., according to Here's what to know about banned baby names. The following names are have been ruled to be illegal by courts in the U.S., according to King Queen Jesus Christ III Santa Claus Majesty Adolf Hitler Messiah @ 1069 In May, New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs published a full list of names (40, to be exact) that were requested and rejected in 2024. The majority resemble a title or rank, such as King, which was requested and denied 11 times. Prince and Princess were also requested, in addition to alternative spellings like Pryncess and Prynce. Names with ties to marijuana were also requested and rejected − Sativa and Indica, which are two popular marijuana strains. Both were only requested and rejected once. "We continue to urge parents to think carefully about names. Names are a gift. Generally, the name registered will be with the individual for the rest of their lives," according to a document published by New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs. While Japan recently banned "shiny" names, other countries have banned a long list of other names. In New Zealand, "Sex Fruit" is also a banned name, while in Mexico, "Robocop" is banned, according to Other names banned in different countries, according to are: Sarah (Morocco) Osama bin Laden (Germany) Metallica (Sweden) Cyanide (United Kingdom) 007 (Malaysia) BRFXXCCXXMNPCCCCLLLMMNPRXVCLMNCKSSQLBB11116 (Sweden) Prince William (France) Quran (China) Judas (Switzerland) Devil (Japan) Blue (Italy) Julia is a trending reporter for USA TODAY. Connect with her on LinkedIn, X, Instagram and TikTok: @juliamariegz, or email her at jgomez@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Can you name your baby Jesus Christ? 10 banned names in the US
USA Today
6 hours ago
- General
- USA Today
No baby Santa? These 10 baby names are banned in the US
No baby Santa? These 10 baby names are banned in the US Show Caption Hide Caption See sweet moment baby is named after grandpa battling illness When Lindsey and Andrew Pelzl found out they were having a little boy in Redwood City, California, they surprised Andrew's dad with his namesake. Humankind Looking for a unique name to give your baby that would help them stand out in a crowd? While the sky is (nearly) the limit, it's best to avoid these 10 offensive or confusing names that are banned in the U.S. Japan has recently banned what is known as "shiny" or "glittery" names, which are names with unusual pronunciations, according to The Guardian. These names could include anything from Pikachu to Nike, according to CNN. But Japan isn't the only country to have banned baby names. The U.S. is more relaxed on naming protocol than other countries, but there are still some rules. Some states have stricter naming laws, and other states don't have any, but there are still some names that have been ruled by courts in the U.S. as illegal. While your child might seem like royalty to you, it's best to avoid naming them King or Queen, as those names have been banned in the U.S., according to Here's what to know about banned baby names. Are any baby names banned in the US? The following names are have been ruled to be illegal by courts in the U.S., according to King Queen Jesus Christ III Santa Claus Majesty Adolf Hitler Messiah @ 1069 40 baby names banned in New Zealand In May, New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs published a full list of names (40, to be exact) that were requested and rejected in 2024. The majority resemble a title or rank, such as King, which was requested and denied 11 times. Prince and Princess were also requested, in addition to alternative spellings like Pryncess and Prynce. Names with ties to marijuana were also requested and rejected − Sativa and Indica, which are two popular marijuana strains. Both were only requested and rejected once. "We continue to urge parents to think carefully about names. Names are a gift. Generally, the name registered will be with the individual for the rest of their lives," according to a document published by New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs. Names banned in other countries While Japan recently banned "shiny" names, other countries have banned a long list of other names. In New Zealand, "Sex Fruit" is also a banned name, while in Mexico, "Robocop" is banned, according to Other names banned in different countries, according to are: Sarah (Morocco) Osama bin Laden (Germany) Metallica (Sweden) Cyanide (United Kingdom) 007 (Malaysia) BRFXXCCXXMNPCCCCLLLMMNPRXVCLMNCKSSQLBB11116 (Sweden) Prince William (France) Quran (China) Judas (Switzerland) Devil (Japan) Blue (Italy) Julia is a trending reporter for USA TODAY. Connect with her on LinkedIn, X, Instagram and TikTok: @juliamariegz, or email her at jgomez@
Otago Daily Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Three Waters services to be kept in-house
The Invercargill City Council has accepted a recommendation from one of its committees to establish a council-operated enhanced service for Three Waters delivery. Infrastructure and projects committee chairman Cr Grant Dermody said the recommendation represented an important step in addressing the future needs of Invercargill. ''How we deliver Three Waters services is a once-in-a-generation decision, and its impacts will span our entire community for many years to come,'' he said in a statement. The provision of Three Waters services was one of the key issues outlined in tandem with the council's draft annual plan 2025-26. A council-operated enhanced service was the council's preferred option. It also consulted on two other options: establishing an Invercargill council-controlled organisation, and a Southland-wide council-controlled organisation. Of the 495 submissions the council received on the draft plan, 188 were about Three Waters. Three-quarters of them agreed with the preferred option. Consultation was required under central government's Local Water Done Well legislation, introduced to ensure water services nationally are finanically sustainable and effectively managed. While Invercargill was in a better position than many other local authorities, having regularly maintained its Three Waters network and invested in associated infrastructure, maintaining the status quo was no longer viable, Mr Dermody said. ''Council must draw a line in the sand, to make sure that the future of Three Waters delivery within our community is practical and fit-for-purpose for future generations,'' he said. ''As a council, we believe the most important outcome is to provide an efficient, effective service that is the most practical for our community in the long term. We also strongly believe in local decision-making.'' The council-operated enhanced service represented the second-least costly option for water services delivery for ratepayers to 2034, and in the long term was the lowest-cost option considered, Mr Dermody said. With this option, the average annual water services rate increase between 2027 and 2034 would be 6.26%, or $150 per household. All councils are required to submit their water services delivery plan to the Department of Internal Affairs by September. — APL
Scoop
22-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Ashburton Going Alone On Water The ‘Best Option Today'
Keeping water services in-house is the right option for right now, according to one Ashburton councillor. The council adopted a stand-alone business unit as the delivery model for its Water Services Delivery Plan for the future delivery of water services in the Ashburton District at its meeting on Wednesday [May 21]. Councillor Russell Ellis said it was a simple decision as the model had the majority backing of the public submissions. 'Today, the stand-alone business unit is the best option for our council, listening to what our ratepayers had to say. 'As more understanding evolves over the next two or three years of the implications of that for us and central government, we may see other changes forced upon us. 'Financial sustainability is about the running of that business unit, it's not about the cost of water for the ratepayer. His fear of the council going alone is 'the final cost of water to our users'. 'Today I support this because it's what our ratepayers want, but in five or six years' time do I think it will be the same – probably not.' A letter from a Local Government Minister Simon Watts delivered before the council meeting on Wednesday didn't sway the council's direction. Ellis said the Local Water Done Well letter suggested a standalone business unit wasn't the direction the Government had intended for the three waters reforms. Mayor Neil Brown agreed, adding the letter suggested 'there is an ability to move to a something else in the future, if the council decided'. 'Our preference, at the moment, is a standalone business unit,' Brown said. Chief executive Hamish Riach said he had contacted another chief executive at a council pursuing a multi-council CCO that received a similar letter and felt the Minister's letter was more focused on 'meeting the obligations of the reform'. 'Financial sustainability, the best interest of the community and water supplies going forward, rather than being a particular message for those opting for a standalone business unit.' 'Having now seen another council with a very similar letter, with a different option, I think the minister is more urging everyone to understand the magnitude of the decision.' The councillors unanimously voted for the stand-alone business unit model. Democracy and engagement group manager Toni Durham said the council's 'pivotal decision' allows staff to move forward with completing the water services delivery plan to submit to the Department of Internal Affairs by September 3.
Scoop
22-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Decision-Day For Masterton's Water
Masterton councillors will decide on Wednesday whether to progress a Wairarapa-Tararua water service entity, or go it alone. The council was set to deliberate on submissions at 2pm on Wednesday and decide between the two options. If the council voted to progress work on the Wairarapa-Tararua water services delivery model, it would enter into a commitment agreement with the participating councils and develop the Water Services Delivery Plan and foundation principles and documents to be carried forward into the plan. Foundation principles would include: non-standardisation of pricing and debt; share allocation; and decision-making arrangements. If council chose this option, there would be two further opportunities to exit the arrangement and to submit a Water Services Delivery Plan with a Masterton-only water services delivery model to the Department of Internal Affairs. The Wairarapa-Tararua option was recommended by council staff because it 'enables council to work through the uncertainties and concerns of the Wairarapa-Tararua model while still providing council with two opportunities to exit the arrangement'. Alternatively, the council could vote to not progress a Wairarapa Tararua water services delivery model and only progress a Masterton-only water services delivery model. Analysis of the 139 submissions made to Masterton District Council showed the majority (60%) were in favour of the Wairarapa-Tararua proposal. Key themes in the submissions from those who supported the proposal were economies of scale, long-term sustainability, support for increased borrowing capacity. Of those who did not support the proposal, key themes were concerns about price standardisation, affordability, and the desire to have more localised control over water assets and services. A report to council said that while protections against price standardisation could be put in place, standardisation in the future could not be guaranteed. A memo from legal firm Morrison Low was also included in the agenda pack for Wednesday's meeting. It provided advice and guidance to Masterton District Council on the council's desire to 'on establishment, protect Masterton from price standardisation' and 'ensure that there are sufficient protections over key decisions or changes to foundational documents over the longer term that protect Masterton from price standardisation to the extent that is desired'. It said there was 'a path forward' that would provide council with assurance that price differentiation was possible; shareholding could be determined on a basis that reflected Masterton's position relative to the region; and decision making could be structured in a way that promoted regional focus and recognised Masterton's position relative to the region at the current time. It also said protections could be enshrined in the series of foundational documents required to establish and then control and govern the council-controlled organisation. It recommended voting mechanism provisions in both the shareholders agreement and constitution which ensured no single council had positive or negative control but which required 75% of the shareholders to agree to any changes to foundational documents. 'A super majority or similar threshold requires not just Masterton District Council but other councils to agree as well, giving a perception and reality that is more consistent with consensus decision making while preserving Masterton District Council's ability to protect the interests of its ratepayers," the memo said. It recommended commencing with local pricing but having a review point for standardisation. This could be a point in time, such as five years, or an 'identified cost differential', for example, when local prices were within 10% of each other. South Wairarapa District Council has already voted to pursue the Wairarapa-Tararua option. Carterton District Council were set to meet at 9am Thursday to deliberate on submissions and decide a path forward. Tararua District Council would meet on May 28 to deliberate on submissions and would decide on the future of water management at an extraordinary meeting on June 11. -LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
