Hi, my name is Andy Moore, and I am a Bible believing Christian. I am also strongly pro-life, and an advocate for small government and personal responsibility. Over the past few months, I have had many Christian friends ask me the million dollar question, "Who should I vote for?". As a result, I have put together this brief message to enable Christian voters to make a well-informed decision on Election day (8 November). Click here to check if you are enrolled to vote.

The parties listed on the right are the five parties which the majority of Christians will consider as we approach Election day. The other parties are really not worth considering due to their anti-family or anti-Christian policies. Briefly discussing each of these parties, I will finish with a conclusion outlining which is the best party for Christians to support.

The Kiwi Party (website)

In May 2007, upset with his leader - Peter Dunne's stance on the Anti-Smacking Bill, United Future list MP Gordon Copeland left his party to become an independent MP. Copeland teamed up with ex-United Future member Larry Baldock, to begin the Future New Zealand party.1 The name change to The Kiwi Party took place in early 2008.

The Kiwi Party was formed hastily on the back of the Anti-Smacking Bill by a group consisting largely of disgruntled ex-United Future members.

The Kiwi Party is well-intentioned, and has a number of policies Christians are looking for in a political party. Their constitution states that they are a "Judeo/Christian Values" party. I have been involved in The Kiwi Party since well before it began. For a time, I was a devoted supporter, and had high hopes for them. It pains me now to list a number of problems with the party that absolutely rule it out as an option for Christian voters.

  1. Gordon Copeland's Voting Record. As a newly independent MP, Gordon Copeland was the only MP to miss the third (most important) reading of the Anti-Smacking Bill.2 His vote was however recorded later at Rodney Hide's suggestion.3 Copeland was also the only MP to miss the third reading of the anti-democratic Electoral Finance Bill, holidaying overseas at the time of the vote.4
  2. Hidden Motive behind Petition. When Larry Baldock kicked off the petition against the Anti-Smacking Bill on 29 February 2007, there was no mention of a political party in the making, only a concerned citizen taking the initiative to battle the law-change that would criminalise good parents. Many of those who had sacrificed many hours towards collecting signatures felt let down when they heard the news of a party starting on the back of their hard work, the petition. They had not been told that this was what they were working for. Members of other political parties had been unknowingly occupied in helping to build the platform that would ultimately be the launching-pad for the Kiwi Party.
  3. Kiwi Party Claims Petition. To add insult to injury, The Kiwi Party then began claiming the petition as their own. No credit was given to the other political parties whose members had devoted so many hours to its completion. For example, the ACT Party had paid for a $13,000 newspaper advert promoting the petition.5
  4. Letter to be sent to 300,000+ who signed petition. In a staggering breach of trust, The Kiwi Party have announced that they intend to send an individual letter (click here to read the letter) to every single person who signed the petition calling for the wider causes of child abuse and family violence to be addressed.6 I and many others have personally assured many hundreds of people signing the petition that under no circumstances will they receive any mail, and that the address is purely for the purpose of establishing that they are who they say they are. And now The Kiwi Party is sending out PDF documents (click to view an example) containing between 200 and 1,000 home addresses to its members, so that they can then send out letters calling for donations and a party vote for the Kiwi Party. "You can help guarantee the referendum is binding by giving your Party Vote to the Kiwi Party." the letter erroneously claims.
    The Privacy Act states that "An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose".7

    Updates:
    1. Family First distances itself from Kiwi Party tactics (click here to read the press release)
    2. The Kiwi Party responds to Family First, denying wrong-doing (click here to read the email)
  5. Forgot to Apply for Broadcasting Allocation. All registered political parties are entitled to a TV and newspaper advertising budget as part of their election campaign. The Kiwi Party forgot to apply for the broadcasting allocation, hinting at a lack of organisation and experience.8
  6. Unrealistic Commitment to Repeal Abortion Law. Ex-United Future List MP Gordon Copeland has written a letter in which he explains to Christians that voting for The Kiwi Party at this election is "our best opportunity in more than 30 years" to change the Abortion laws in New Zealand.9 This is unfortunately purely conjecture, and is definitely not based on facts. However I am entirely supportive of Copeland's proposed amendments to the law.
  7. Larry Baldock won't get Tauranga. Baldock has assured his supporters that he has a good chance in Tauranga, and will almost certainly win the seat - ensuring The Kiwi Party a place in Parliament. However if this is the case, then the recent poll in Tauranga where Baldock registered at 1% really doesn't add up.10
  8. Socialist ideology. One of The Kiwi Party's running policies is the $15 minimum wage.11 Raising the minimum wage initially sounds like a good idea. However, it is nothing but an artificial pay-rise, and only speeds up inflation by pushing up the costs of goods and services in New Zealand. (More info here). Another policy The Kiwi Party wants to bring in, is "$100 of your tax-money directed to the charity of your choice".11 Again, this sounds nice, but you have to ask - if the money is going to a charity, then why does it have to first pass through the Government? Kiwis should instead be given a $100 tax-cut and be allowed to do with their money what they wish. These are just two examples of The Kiwi Party's socialist approach to solving societal issues in our country.
  9. False Accusations against the Family Party. Below is documentation of two instances where The Kiwi Party have made false accusations against the Family Party. The Family Party has never made a comeback on these two instances, because they disagree with Christians attacking each other in public. To me, this speaks volumes about the Family Party's Godly, humble attitude.
    1. At the Forum on the Family12 in September 2008, Larry Baldock took the floor and made the following claim about the Family Party's actions in the Mangere electorate: "They are knocking on the door and telling people that Taito's going to go to prison so they shouldn't waste their time voting for him...". (click here to listen to this part of his speech) Richard Lewis has personally told me that this is absolutely unfounded, and that they have never done such a thing. Subsequent to this claim, the Family Party requested evidence or a withdrawal of the unsubstantiated allegation, however Larry has never got back to them.
    2. Also at the Forum on the Family, pamphlets from The Kiwi Party were distributed which contained a claim that the Family Party was blurring the line between Church and State.13 However, once again, this is not the case. The following statement is taken from the Family Party website: "The Family Party affirms separation of church and state and the freedom of religious choice.".14

Summary: Even if The Kiwi Party had a chance of getting into Parliament, they would still be a bad choice. A vote for the Kiwi Party is essentially half a vote for Labour. They will not make the 5% party vote threshold, and Larry Baldock will not get Tauranga. They get two stars for trying.

References:

  1. TVNZ, May 16, 2007
  2. NZ Herald, May 17, 2007
  3. Parliament website, 16 May, 2007
  4. Electoral Finance Act - Wikipedia
  5. Scoop, 4 February, 2008
  6. Click to view email
  7. Principle 10, Privacy Act 1993, NZ
  8. Elections website
  9. Click to download letter
  10. Kiwiblog, 29 August, 2008
  11. www.thekiwiparty.org.nz
  12. www.forumonthefamily.org.nz
  13. Click to view the pamphlet
  14. footnote, www.familyparty.org.nz/party/christian-heritage

The Family Party (website)

The Family Party is the other Christian-values party many Christians are considering. The Family Party was launched in October 2007, in a whirlwind of controversy around the failed merge between Future New Zealand and the Destiny Party.1 I will avoid pointing the finger at either party at this stage, however will provide an overview in a nut-shell. A national council consisting of representatives from Churches and other organisations was set up, with the goal of developing a single, united Christian-values political party. The council decided that it would be best if both Future New Zealand and the Destiny party first de-register, and then come together again in a fresh new party. The merge did not come to fruition, due largely to a lack of trust. The story we have all heard in the mainstream media is that the Destiny group called a surprise press conference and betrayed the confidence of the Future NZ side. However there is more to it than that. This has really never come to light due to the Family Party's commitment not to accuse Christian brothers and sisters in public.

The Family Party's policies are much more economically sound than The Kiwi Party's. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, such as raising the minimum wage, or passing legislation regarding how much houses cost, the Family Party focuses on practical, realistic solutions to the economic trouble that our country is currently facing. Calling for GST to be removed from bare necessities such as petrol, bread and milk2, the Family Party is also calling for a lower, flatter tax structure - which is a good step in the right direction for New Zealand. Click here to watch the Family Party's excellent campaign video.

Like the ACT Party, the Family Party is grounded in a constitution built upon a philosophy. However, while ACT is built upon the philosophy of libertarianism, the Family Party puts the Lordship of Jesus Christ first in all it's policies.3 At the same time, and unlike all the other parties, the Family Party and ACT stand together as the only two parties acting on principle - not popular opinion or dictatorship of the party leader.

There are a number of allegations being levelled against the Family Party, largely stemming from misinformation and misleading reports from the main-stream media. Firstly, the claim is made that Brian Tamaki is the power behind the throne of the Family Party. I met with party leader Richie Lewis and asked him if this was the case. While he said that Tamaki served as his personal mentor, he had no role in the party. In fact, it will come as a surprise to some to hear that Tamaki is not even a member of the Family Party. Another commonly held misperception is that the Family Party is a Christian/Church party that blurs the dividing line between church and state. However, this is not true either, as there is no official connection between Destiny Church and the Family Party. It may come as a surprise to some that only two of the fourteen Family Party candidates attend Destiny Church. Furthermore, the board members of the Family Party attend a total of nine different churches. Claims that major funding for the Family Party comes from Destiny church are just unfounded propaganda

But does the Family Party have a chance at getting into Parliament? The answer there is a resounding yes! They have a good shot at getting into Parliament, providing National with an additional coalition partner. Jerry Filipaina is running for the Family Party in the South Auckland seat of Mangere. Jerry and his team have door-knocked the entire Mangere electorate three times, and found the response to be very positive. Jerry is up against Incumbent MP, ex-Labour MP Taito Phillip Field who has started up his own party, The Pacific Party.4 However Mr. Field still has 40 criminal charges stacked against his name5, and has lost a great deal of support in his electorate. With such a good chance of getting an electorate seat, voters can be more confident when they give their party vote to the Family Party, as they know it will count towards the number of MPs they will get into Parliament.

Summary: It is a crying shame that there isn't just one Christian-values Political party. However, the Family Party is without doubt the best of the two options - and also the only one with a decent chance of making it into Parliament. Nine stars - almost ten, but then, no party is going to be perfect.

References:

  1. NewstalkZB, 17 October, 2007
  2. NZone news report, 2 July, 2008
  3. www.thefamilyparty.org.nz
  4. Stuff, 20 Feb, 2008
  5. NZ Herald, 26 Nov, 2007

ACT (website)

The ACT Party comes in after the Family Party as a close second option for Christian voters. Like the Family Party, ACT bases all their policies on a philosophy. Committed to small government and getting rid of Nanny State, ACT once voted for a bill to lower the number of MPs in Parliament from 120 down to 100.1 They voted for this bill even though had it passed, it would have forced them out of Parliament. One other example which stands out is ACT's strong opposition to the Anti-Smacking Law. The ACT party stood shoulder to shoulder with 83% of Kiwis in fighting the Anti-Smacking Law which would criminalise good parents for doing nothing more than giving their child a smack.2 ACT was the only party to oppose the bill the whole way through. Christians can trust the ACT party to act on principle.

ACT believes that the way to solve our social and economic problems in New Zealand is to empower the people - not to enlarge the already top-heavy bureaucracy in Wellington. ACT's plan to make Kiwi families $500 better off per week is achievable, and as a part of the new Government, they could make some good headway towards this admirable goal. Click here to read ACT's 20 Point plan outlining how they aim to achieve this. However, when it comes to abortion, ACT believes that the adverse social consequences of unplanned pregnancy either means that it is ok to kill people or to define them as non-persons. On a more positive note, ACT would not endorse the public funding of abortions with your tax money. Your party-vote for ACT is guaranteed not to be wasted, as the Auckland electorate of Epsom is very happy with Rodney Hide, and will re-elect him as their MP on 8 November.3 It is important to remember that a National Government on it's own will not result in positive change for New Zealand. Only a National/ACT government will bring about the change we so desperately need.

Summary: If you're not voting for the Family Party, and are dissapointed in National, then a party vote for ACT is the way to go. Eight stars; the Family Party has better Christian policy, but ACT has good policy plus more MPs in Parliament to push for it.

References:

  1. Parliament website, 15 March, 2006
  2. Parliament website, 16 May, 2007
  3. NZ Herald, 19 Oct, 2008

National (website)

This election, fed up and desperate to get rid of the Labour government, a large number of Christians are planning to give their party vote to National. What these voters do not understand, is that a National government is not going to be much better than what we currently have. Instead, it is the responsibility of Christian/Conservative voters in New Zealand, to use their vote to support a small party which will serve as a strong coalition partner for National to form the new government with. The polls currently show very little likelihood of National losing the election, so do we really want to give them enough support to rule alone as a single majority party? It is crucial that National is forced to call for help from one or two smaller parties, as this will keep National honest. Re-iterating what I have just said, a party vote for National will change the government, but a vote for one of the smaller parties such as the Family Party or ACT will give us a government of change.

Change like repealing the Anti-Smacking Law and the anti-democratic Electoral Finance Act. National absolutely cannot be trusted to govern alone. Take their handling of the Anti-Smacking law as an example. They opposed the bill all the way along, and then at the third and final reading, they caved in and supported the law - criminalizing good parents. John Key is not promising that National will repeal the Anti-Smacking law, however he will be quick to agree to repeal the law if this is what is required by one of the smaller parties that National wants to form a coalition government with.

Let the die-hard National supporters give National the party vote they need to be able to form a new government. It is our job to ensure that National has strong coalition partners such as ACT and the Family Party available to form the new government with after 8 November.

Summary: Voting for National will not necessarily change the Government. I recommend that Christian voters consider ACT and the Family Party, but as a last resort, you could vote for National. Four stars, as National is definitely a better choice than either The Kiwi Party or United Future.

United Future (website)

United Future is the worst of the five parties I am discussing. The only reason I am bothering, is because many Christian voters consider them a sensible option when considering which party to vote for. In 2002, United Future got into Parliament with nine MPs, following a campaign showing that they were a party with strong Christian/Family values. A large number of Christians voted for the party, believing that United Future would advocate for good, traditional, conservative values. However, this is a party responsible for putting Labour back in government in 2005.

United Future has betrayed the very people who voted them into Parliament. An ex-United Future member told me that Peter Dunne often over-rules the decision of his caucus, showing that his own agenda is more important than the concerns of the people that voted the party in. The best way to describe United Future in a short sentence is as follows. United Future is consistently inconsistent. Below are three examples.

  1. Civil Unions Act. United Future opposed the Civil Unions bill while it was before Parliament, but now supports the law.1
  2. Anti-Smacking Law. United Future opposed the Anti-Smacking bill at it's first reading.2 However at the second3 and third4 readings of the bill, party leader Peter Dunne voted in support of the bill. He arrogantly ignored the hundreds of people who contacted him personally, and the public outcry against the bill - instead supporting Labour's nanny state agenda.
  3. Electoral Finance Bill. United Future supported the anti-democratic assault on free speech, the Electoral Finance bill at it's first and second readings. At it's third reading, United Future mysteriously "listened to the people" and turned 180 degrees, voting against the bill.5 However, by this time it was to late for his 'swing' vote to change anything.

No party whose founding philosophy is "common sense" can be taken seriously, as common sense is a relative and constantly changing concept. Peter Dunne's "common sense" is a polite term for political expediency. Although the party as a whole has a relatively good voting record on family issues, it is not enough to make them a good option for Christians considering who to vote for at this election.

Summary: I wouldn't mind seeing United Future out of Parliament to be quite honest. They've fooled around in Parliament for long enough already. Two stars. One for Judy Turner who is a decent MP and 100% family friendly, and one for some pro-family policies.

References:

  1. GayNZ, 12 Oct, 2008
  2. Parliament website, 27 July, 2005
  3. Parliament website, 21 Feb, 2007
  4. Parliament website, 16 May, 2007
  5. NZ Herald, 18 Dec, 2007

Conclusion

It is imperative New Zealand enters 2009 with a strong right-wing coalition government, changing the socialist, left wing direction we are currently travelling in. Ideally, this would be in the form of a National/ACT or National/ACT/Family Party coalition. From my position as a Bible-believing Christian and considering the above discussion, I recommend you give your party vote to the Family Party. However, if you are not confident in the Family Party, give your party vote to ACT, as it will not be wasted, and will further strengthen the right-wing coalition.

Finally, a quick comment regarding your electorate vote. I encourage everyone to give their candidate vote to their local National candidate. They may not be the best option, but I can guarantee that they will be better than your local Labour candidate. The exceptions of course, are Mangere (vote for Jerry from the Family Party), East Coast Bays (vote for Paul Adams of the Family Party) and Epsom (vote for Rodney Hide of ACT) and maybe a few others. I haven't discussed the workings of MMP here, but you can take this quiz to make sure you're up to speed on MMP.

Do make use of the excellent Value Your Vote website which has been created by Family First.

Thanks for listening. I hope this has been useful for you in deciding who you will vote for. Please pass this on :)

Andy Moore (contact)

 

I have endeavoured to present a balanced and accurate view here - if you have any suggestions or corrections, please let me know, thanks.