Nice to have, but do I need a benefit boost
One part of the Government's $12b interim financial 'solution' to Covid-19 has me confused.
I can understand assistance to businesses and those staff that may be made redundant or suffer reduced hours. I can also see the reasoning to support Air NZ.
However, I cannot see any reason to increase payments to beneficiaries.
Being somewhat past the age of 65, I receive New Zealand Superannuation, for which I am grateful. That makes me (I believe) a beneficiary. As I understand it, I am now going to be given an extra $25 a week as a gift and an increase to the winter heating subsidy. Bloody marvellous, but why?
The Covid-19 virus is not going to have any effect on my day-to-day existence.
My housing costs will not change, nor will my sustenance costs, unless the cost of dunny paper and hand sanitiser skyrocket. I cannot see an impending increase in the cost of power nor wood for the log burner.
However, I can see a reason for these increased benefits and that is political. I suspect that a substantial number of beneficiaries are low income recipients and this generally suggests an affiliation with Labour when the polls open.
In my humble opinion, the inclusion of increased spending power to beneficiaries is nothing more than electioneering prior to the election. I will appreciate the extra dollars, but it will not alter my vote, nor I suspect those of many other intelligent people.
• Letters: Library must be a collector; an apology
• Letters: Dragging the chain on climate change
• Premium - Letters: Time for council to throw the book at city's fly-tipping fraternity
• Letters: Secular, but not atheist
The passing of the Labour-led Government's radical Abortion Legislation Bill represents an attack on the family, on the status and dignity of women and of the right to life of New Zealanders in their first nine months of life.
How our cafes and bars are adapting to Covid-19
Whanganui has amazing heritage, let's preserve it
The foundation principles of this Act are that the unborn child is not a human being and has no human rights until it is born; this is a dangerous fallacy. It is now no longer a crime to kill an unborn child by abortion. In the words of Jacinda Ardern it is now "a reproductive choice for women".
Parliament has now redefined who is human and has defined the unborn child as a non-human and not a member of the human family; it is now effectively a chattel and the property of the mother.
If today Parliament can deny the right to life of the unborn it will, as prophesised by the Royal Commission in 1977, one day refuse to protect the right to life of those with dementia and Alzheimer's.
An attack on the right to life of the unborn child is an attack on the right to life of all.
We need to remember the result of banned abortion. No mother should have to have a child she does not want. No child should be born to a mother who does not want him/her.
For adoption, there should be enough children who lose their mother by natural causes, available around the world, to fill this need.
And we need to remember the extreme human over-population of this planet.