Thanks to a religious group getting involved in the 2005 election we are now lumbered with the ludicrous and unfathomable Electoral Finance Act.
Now more religious groups want to get involved in the 2008 campaign and are claiming the EFA does not apply to them and they will not be registering as a third party.
The churches are distributing 50,000 copies of the first of five leaflets, on child poverty, coinciding with the Budget this week.
Methodist Church president Brian Turner said the Electoral Commission recommended that they should "err on the side of caution" and register as third parties under the new Electoral Finance Act. But they decided not to.
"We don't see it as electioneering or promoting any particular party against others, so we didn't see the need to register," he said.
The same churches made it clear just weeks ago they want benefit levels raised. They are in the same camp as the CPAG who are backed in their legal action against the government by the Greens and the Maori Party.
The leaflets and 2500 posters are being sent this week to Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Salvation Army churches under the auspices of their umbrella group, the Council of Christian Social Services.
The Council of Christian Social Services is very political. They make submissions to the Social Services Select Committee and they are traditionally left-wing.
I hope that the Electoral Commission is very fair-handed in administering this Act - if that is possible. But somehow I cannot imagine the churches being prosecuted. It makes me very unhappy to have to urge the application of rules with which I don't agree but then again the rules were supposed to bring about a level playing field and the churches should not be above them.
Bob Ekelund Remembered
1 hour ago
9 comments:
Ahh, the biggest probem with these left-wing Christian-socialists (to quote war criminal Tony Blair and Mr 17% I-destroyed-the-UK-Labour-party) is that they're not taxed.
It's one thing to argue for more benefits when you're paying for them.
It's something completely different when you are taxed at 0%!
no representation without taxation
the resolution to this problem is simple:
repeal the EFA
Tax churches at 39% from the first dollar
Anon: agree with your conclusion to repeal the EFA, but with regard to 39% taxation , two wrongs don't make a right.
Why tax at 39% at all? See the newly-released Libertarianz budget for answers!
Wee hint: being socialist to the bone, the NZCCSS won't like it all!
:)
Why tax at 39% at all? See the newly-released Libertarianz budget for answers!
Yeah right. Losertarians. Get a grip.
We tax churches and unions and anything left of the Labour party at 39% because they are socialists
We tax productive businesses - and the National party, the business roundtable etc - at 0% because they are productive
how hard is that to understand
(oh, and I think you'll find NZCSS will hate that proposal more than your pie-in-the-sky Losertarians)
Define socialist? All welfare commentators are by default socialist?
Lindsay, shouldn't your statement include the words I have added in brackets?
Thanks to (the Labour Government taking exception to) a religious group getting involved in the 2005 election we are now lumbered with the ludicrous and unfathomable Electoral Finance Act.
The better question to ask is why the churches have suddenly got out the rusty old weapons of social equity after all this time.
Of course it's because they now perceive that the Nats will be in govt next year. The churches have taken the view in recent years that social equity is attained with the election of leftish govts, but in an effort to not appear totally hypocritical they are attacking the corpse of the present govt.
But never fear, this is a precursor attack on National as the churches finally discover that the poor in NZ today are poorer than they were after Ruth's 1991 budget.
Pack of cowards, opportunists and hypocrites.
JC
"Thanks to a religious group we're stuck with"???
Where are your brains Lindsey?
The Religious group had every right to do what they did, it was NOT against the law!!
The reason we have the EFA is a stalinist liar leader who is closing any and all avenues for her opponants so she can stay in power.
you're emphasis on blaming a group for doing what they were entitled to is not fair or just.
By the way I am voting ACT for my party vote this year.
Why?
they were the only party to say NO we won't vote for the anti smacking bill as it will subject ordinary kiwi parents to interference from CYPS and NZPolice.
I do not support the theology nor behaviours of the brthern, but respect their right to hold them even if I think they are very misguided.
Mike Mckee
Seatoun
The Exclusive Brethren had every right to campaign against Labour. I believe they should have put their name to it. It was their actions that triggered the EFA. In that respect I do apportion blame to them but I don't dispute their right to be heard. My wording should have been more in line with anon's suggestion,
"Thanks to (the Labour Government taking exception to) a religious group getting involved in the 2005 election."
Jeez, Lindsay, was it something I said?!
The first anonymous comment - with several of the faceless ones commenting, it becomes confusing - thinks (presumingly ongoing) selective taxation's the answer? I can just see the electorate swallowing that, I don't think.
If the prickly one bothered to read Libz tax policy, s/he'd see it's transitional, with 0% expected in 5 years.
How hard is *that* to understand?
Post a Comment