You have a strange definition of bigot. I stand by my comment.
Printable View
It does happen though, but perhaps less so than in the past. Husband of a close work colleague (next desk) died in his 50s a few years back and was one of those few with pain that could not be well managed. A huge amount of effort went into managing but not very successful. Just terrible. Ok, sample of one, but terrible for all concerned. For weeks, fortunately not months.
Getting his highly controversial Bill through third reading is a significant achievement for a single MP. Mr Seymour deserves credit for that.
Loved his rebuttal today in Parliament - ‘It’s alright, Grandpa’ to Winston 🤣
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12337324
ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.
But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...overnment.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seym...nger-man-alone
It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.
It will cost heaps and is more red tape.
their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.
I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.