This article examines Christian politics in New Zealand. Although New Zealand's population is, at least nominally, predominantly Christian, debate can take place over the extent to which Christianity affects its politics. At one end of the spectrum many dismiss the effects of Christianity, saying that New Zealand society has always had a largely secular character. At the other end of the spectrum, however, many see Christianity as underlying New Zealand's entire political system. Note that church-oriented bodies sponsored and fostered several of the original European settlement ventures in the period 1840 - 1850, notably the settlements of Otago (1848, Free Church of Scotland) and Canterbury (1850, Church of England). On the other hand, a notable politician of the late 19th century, Sir Robert Stout, had a considerable reputation as a freethinker.

Christianity has, as one might expect, had a role in both major contemporary political parties, although it has never (unlike in some European countries) formed an explicit part of them. Religious elements in these parties have taken varying forms, and cannot easily be classified as a single movement. One can much more readily examine the Christian conservative strand that arose in the 1970s and 1980s, mostly in reaction to the perceived decline of social standards. This movement contributed to the founding of Christian political parties such as Christian Heritage, the Christian Democrats, and the Christian Coalition. The political aspect of Maori Christianity, such as the Ratana movement, also merits attention.

Christianity in mainstream political parties

Neither the Labour Party nor the National Party, the two traditional mainstream political parties in New Zealand since the 1940s, express explicitly religious traditions. Nevertheless, both parties have occasionally contained people who saw their political mission in religious terms. A number of early politicians, both in Labour and in National, saw their respective political ideologies as an extension of "Christian values".

The National Party, as the more conservative of the two major traditional parties, has generally attracted more religious support than the Labour Party. However, National never had a monopoly on mainstream religious politics, particularly historically. In the early Labour Party a significant sub-set of the party promoted what one might call "Christian socialism", claiming that "Christian kindness and charity" fitted socialism better than it did conservatism. Walter Nash, a Labour Prime Minister, saw his policies in this light. A number of early Labour politicians came from a religious background - Arnold Nordmeyer, who eventually led the party in Opposition, had served as a Presbyterian minister before entering politics. Also, one should not underestimate the influence of the Ratana movement (see Maori Christianity, below).

In recent times, however, religion has not usually formed a major component of either Labour or National platforms. The current leaders of both major parties would classify as agnostic by most definitions.

Christian political activism

Beginning in the 1970s a significant increase in activism by New Zealand Christian organisations occurred. Much of this opposed reforms undertaken by the government. In the 1970s the two most significant campaigns opposed the liberalisation of abortion rules and the legalisation of homosexual acts. Perhaps surprisingly, members of the generally-conservative National Party (George Gair and Venn Young, respectively) championed each of these legislative measures. Organizations such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) and the Society for the Protection of Community Standards (SPCS), while not explicitly religious, served as a focus for Christian conservatism. Eventually, the conservatives won the battle over homosexual law reform, but lost the battle over abortion.

In March 1985, when Labour's Fran Wilde introduced a new homosexual law reform bill, a resurgence of Christian-based political activism occurred. Two National MPs, Graeme Lee and Norman Jones , organised a petition against the bill; and Labour MP Geoff Braybrooke joined them in their campaign. A number of activists from the United States provided advice. At about the same time, the Coalition of Concerned Citizens (CCC) formed, using the motto "For God, Family and Country". The campaign eventually failed, however, and the bill became law.

The increased Christian political activism did, however, set the stage for the emergence of the modern Christian political parties (see below).

Christian parties

Two significant New Zealand Christian political parties emerged in recent times: the Christian Heritage Party and the Christian Democrat Party. Both have their origins in the increased political activism of the 1970s and 1980s.

Before the Christian Coalition

The Christian Heritage Party formed in 1989. The driving force behind its creation, Bill van Rij , had previously had involvement in the Christian protest movement. Van Rij took direct inspiration from the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, and believed that a similar party could have success in New Zealand. In January 1988, van Rij and several friends established a steering committee for a new political party based on the Canadian model. In February, a meeting in Christchurch confirmed the plan, and John Allen, a former National Party candidate, became de facto interim leader. By 20 July 1989, a sufficient number of people had gathered for the party to launch officially. The party took a strict biblical line, and strongly condemned things such as abortion, pornography, and the perceived erosion of marriage and the family. Shortly after the party's official launch, the Reverend Graham Capill gained appointment as leader, a position he would hold for many years.

Religious conservatives gave a mixed reaction to the formation of the Christian Heritage Party. Some groups, such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, welcomed the party. Others, however, believed that an independent Christian conservative party would not succeed, or worse, would split the conservative vote. Graeme Lee, a National MP who had fought against homosexual law reform, did not support the new party, seeing fighting for Christian values within the National Party as more effective. Critics also noted that the party (like its Canadian counterpart) drew heavily on the Reformed Churches - two thirds of the delegates at its first convention came from this denomination, with the remainder mostly unaffiliated. Yet another criticism saw the party as too extreme.

One controversial issue associated the Christian Heritage Party centered on the party's rigidly "confessional" nature. Under this policy, all members of the party had to declare themselves as Christians. The Christian Heritage Party saw this requirement as only natural, and a guarantee of the party's ideological purity. Other Christian activists, however, particularly those with more moderate views, believed that confessionalism unnecessarily restricted the support base of the party. Instead, they advocated a party "based on Christian values", rather than a "Christians Only" party. The non-confessionalists claimed that anyone, even if not actually followers of the Christian religion, could see the benefits of Christian values to society.

Graeme Lee, the National MP, opposed confessionalism, believing that a party which followed this doctrine would never gain sufficient support. For this reason, among others, Lee, when invited, refused to join the new Christian Heritage Party. Lee had initially disliked the idea of having a separate Christian or Christian-based party at all, believing that remaining with National could prove more effective. In 1993, however, Lee had fallen out with the National Party's leadership, mainly due to losing his ministerial role in a Cabinet reshuffle. Lee's demotion, combined with his belief that National had started to become gradually more and more liberal, had prompted him to plan a departure. At this point Christian Heritage contacted Lee and invited him to join the party. According to some accounts, Lee actually received an offer of leadership.

The negotiations between Lee and Christian Heritage eventually broke down, however. The issue of Confessionalism, which Lee continued to oppose, remained a major sticking point. Lee eventually pulled out of the talks, and in 1994, established his own group, known as the United Progressive Party. The prospect of two competing Christian parties alarmed many Christian conservative activists, and repeated attempts took place to get the two sides talking once again, but the issue of confessionalism (as well as several other policy differences that had emerged) made this difficult. In November, however, talks re-opened, partly at the urging of Bill van Rij.

It seemed obvious to both sides that cooperation would bring mutual benefits - Lee had the advantage of a current Parliamentary seat, while the Christian Heritage Party had the advantage of superior organisation and a "grass-roots" network. Policy issues once again proved difficult, but on 20 December 1994 a proposed agreement finally emerged. The proposal, which needed ratification by both Christian Heritage and the United Progressives, would have seen both parties dissolved, with a new united, non-confessional party set up in their place. Lee reportedly endorsed the plan, and believed that it would succeed. Graham Capill, of Christian Heritage, showed less enthusiasm. Later, a Christian Heritage Party convention rejected the proposal, although it did offer an alliance which would have seen the parties contest the election together. Lee, deeply disappointed at the rejection, refused the alliance. Van Rij also expressed disappointment with the decision.

On 17 May 1995, Lee re-launched his party, calling it the Christian Democrat Party. (The Christian Heritage Party complained to the Electoral Commission that the name too closely resembled their own, but the commission rejected this complaint). The launch of the party went well and generated considerable media attention. Lee also received considerable publicity for his attacks on the "Death with Dignity" bill, an attempt by dissident National MP Michael Laws to legalise euthanasia.

The Christian Coalition

Occasional attempts at talks between Christian Heritage and the Christian Democrats continued during the early part of 1995, but these proved generally ineffectual. Towards the end of 1995, however, pressure for a united front began to increase substantially. Bill van Rij became particularly prominent in this effort, as did a number of Christian associations which threatened to withhold their endorsement. At the instigation of Murray Smith, an Executive Member with Christian Democrats, more talks took place, and eventually decided an alliance possible, with everything split exactly equally between the two parties. The joint party list would alternate between the Christian Democrats and Christian Heritage, beginning with Lee (as a sitting MP) in first place and Capill in second. While the two parties would campaign together, they would function separately in Parliament.

The new Christian Coalition launched on 29 March 1996. It received considerable public attention, and prospered in opinion polls. The Coalition issued its manifesto in September, though -- due to an inability to resolve certain differences between the two parties -- the manifesto lacked a degree of detail. The Christian Heritage Party expressed a certain amount of dissatisfaction over the manifesto, which it considered "too moderate". Lee and the Christian Democrats, however, strongly believed moderation crucial to electoral success, and that Christian Heritage's more extreme policies would alienate many voters. Even with Lee's attempt at moderation, however, the party's more controversial views tended to receive the most media attention, and many criticised the Coalition as "extremist".

In the 1996 election itself, the Christian Coalition gained 4.33% of the vote. This fell short of the 5% necessary for proportional representation under MMP, and none of the party's electorate candidates won a seat. As many polls had once shown the Coalition as passing the 5% threshold, this result led to disappointment. Considerable acrimony ensued between Christian Heritage and the Christian Democrats, with both believing that the other had caused the loss. Christian Heritage generally believed that the Christian Democrats had "watered down" the Coalition's message in the name of political pragmatism, surrendering the moral high ground and giving up the party's clear focus. The Christian Democrats, on the other hand, said that Christian Heritage's extremism and unwillingness to compromise had led to the defeat. Each side essentially blamed the other for dragging the Coalition down.

In May 1997, the Christian Coalition dissolved, and its constituent parties went their own separate ways. Shortly afterwards, Bill van Rij left Christian Heritage and joined Christian Democrats, blaming Capill for the collapse of the Coalition. A number of other senior Christian Heritage members, led by a former Deputy Leader, Geoff Hounsell, also resigned or were expelled from the party and joined the Christian Democrats following their unsuccessful attempt to have Christian Heritage agree to a merger with Christian Democrats.

After the Christian Coalition

The Christian Heritage Party remained somewhat bitter about the collapse of the Christian Coalition. While considerable tension had existed between Christian Heritage and the Christian Democrats, Graham Capill apparently believed a resolution possible. After the Christian Democrats left, however, Christian Heritage re-affirmed all its traditional policies, including those that had seemed too extreme for the Coalition. The party contested both the 1999 election and the 2002 election under its own banner, but never matched the performance of the Christian Coalition in 1996. Still, it was the most popular party that didn't obtain the 5 percent of the national vote required to enter Parliament. In 2003, Capill stepped down as party leader and Ewen McQueen succeeded him. How the leadership change will affect the party's fortunes remains unknown, but the party has expressed a strong determination to "continue the fight." Also in 2003, the party renamed itself simply Christian Heritage New Zealand.

The Christian Democrats, by contrast, took a considerably different path. Not long after the Christian Coalition fell apart, Graeme Lee announced that he would step down as leader of the party. He had contemplated retiring for some time, and had already determined that if the Coalition failed he would make his exit from politics. For some considerable period of time the party remained with Lee as temporary leader, as no satisfactory new candidate had emerged. Eventually Anthony Walton emerged as the new leader. Under Walton, the Christian Democrats went even further down the non-confessional path, removing all explicit references to Christianity from their party platform. The party adopted the name "Future New Zealand" ("Future Vision" was also proposed), and positioned itself as a "values-based" rather than a religion-based party.

Future New Zealand contested the 1999 General Election but gained only 1.1% of the party vote. Consideration was given as to whether the party should become an apolitical lobby group but led by its General Secretary, Murray Smith, who had instigated discussions with Peter Dunne, the leader of United New Zealand and the holder of a "safe" constituency seat, the party decided to explore a coalition with United New Zealand instead. Following further discussions with United, the two parties entered into a coalition to contest the 2002 General Election under the name United Future New Zealand. The group gained 6.7% of the party vote, giving it 8 seats. In 2003 the two parties formally merged. Considerable debate continues as to whether to classify the resultant group as a Christian party, but the party itself rejects that label. According to United Future, the party does indeed have a grounding in traditional values, but remains open to anyone who shares those values, not merely to Christians.

In 2003 another Christian party formed in New Zealand - Destiny New Zealand, based around the evangelical Destiny Church pastored by controversial pastor Brian Tamaki. It has not made a substantial impact on New Zealand party politics as yet, but has high hopes for the future. Tamaki has claimed that Destiny Church will rule New Zealand by 2008, but opinion polls show the party far short of the support required to enter Parliament.

Maori Christianity

The first significant specifically Christian political party activity in New Zealand came at the behest of the Ratana movement. The Ratana Church, established by Maori spiritual leader Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana in 1925, gained particularly strong support from Maori of lower socio-economic status. The Ratana movement actively participated in the world of politics, and the first Ratana Member of Parliament gained election in the 1932 elections .

In Parliament, the Ratana movement co-operated closely with the Labour Party, the rising force in New Zealand politics at the time. In the 1935 elections, Ratana won two of the four of the Maori seats, and shortly afterwards, allied itself with the Labour Party, which had won the election. The Labour Party and the Ratana movement have remained closely allied since this point, although the alliance has grown strained at times.

In recent years at least one independent attempt has occurred to bring the Ratana religion to politics - the Piri Wiri Tua party, although not part of the Ratana Church, has strongly roots in Ratanadom.