Speech to the North Shore Electorate of the National Party

by Hon Christopher Finlayson,
06 December 2005

In my Maiden Speech I spoke of how the National Party is the heir to the liberal and conservative non-socialist political traditions of this country.  Next year will the 70th anniversary of the birth of my Party formed out of the ruins of the old Reform and United parties which had been so comprehensively thrashed by Michael Joseph Savage’s Labour Party in 1935.

In my speech, I looked at a practical application of liberal conservative principles in a number of areas, most notably constitutional and legal issues, perhaps not surprisingly given my appointment as shadow Attorney-General and my great interest in those subjects.  After the speech, someone suggested to me that I should continue to develop the theme of liberal conservatism in the 21st Century and apply those principles to the issues of the day.

When thinking about what I could speak about tonight, I automatically started to reflect on economic issues.  There are, however, people far more qualified to speak about those issues than me and, in any event, something occurred during the past week, which made me think there was a more pressing issue to discuss at this time.  Let me explain.

Last Tuesday evening I was in the Chamber of the House of Representatives listening to the new Attorney-General, David Parker, give his speech in the Address in Reply Debate.  As you may know, Mr Parker is not only Attorney-General; he is also Minister of Transport and Energy and also the Minister in Charge of Climate Change issues.  Perhaps I am hopelessly idealistic, but I was hoping for a reasonably elevated speech from Mr Parker on his new responsibilities, principally how he saw the office of Attorney-General and what he wanted to bring to it.  Instead, under the cloak of Parliamentary Privilege, he made a vicious and hyperbolic attack on the Exclusive Brethren.  This is what he said:  “Of course, the Exclusive Brethren is not a moderate church group.  It has been fairly described in one of New Zealand’s leading newspapers as the Taliban of New Zealand’s religious sects.”  I looked up into the public gallery and saw a young family watching the proceedings.  The scarves on the heads of the three little girls indicated to me that they were members of the Exclusive Brethren.  A few minutes later I went up into the gallery to ask if they were all right and suggested they not be offended by the rubbish Parker was mouthing.  The father assured me his children were fine and I wasn’t to worry.

Other Labour speakers have made similar comments in their speeches describing the Brethren as, inter alia, sinister and deceitful.

These comments need to be examined in the context of liberal-conservative principles.  They identify a minority group in a very unfair manner.  While I acknowledge that the Brethren are not a middle of the road church group they do not deserve to be pilloried in this way.  To call such people the Taliban and liken them with an extreme terrorist group is from my research an unfair portrayal and is victimisation.

Before continuing with my speech, I should emphasise to you that this was the first contact I had had with members of the Exclusive Brethren.  I did not obtain any assistance from the Exclusive Brethren during my campaign in the Mana electorate earlier this year. 

For many years I lived in Khandallah, a suburb of Wellington, and was accustomed to driving through Ngaio and Crofton Downs on my way to Karori.  In the mid-1960’s, a rather forbidding structure was erected in Crofton Downs.  This was the Church of the Exclusive Brethren.  The Exclusive Brethren tend to live in reasonably large numbers in Crofton Downs, near their Church, and their children attend the local school.  As you well know, the women and girls are recognisable because of the scarves. 

Like many of you, I had my own preconceptions of the Exclusive Brethren, thinking they were rather remote people but never gave them very much thought.

Given all the publicity about the Brethren, after Parker’s speech I decided it would be proper to find out a little more about them.  The Exclusive Brethren emerged out of the Anglican Church in the 1820’s.  Theologically they are reasonably close to the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church although, in terms of social organisation, they are much stricter.

The Exclusive Brethren have been part of New Zealand society for more than 150 years.  They appear to have very strong family units and take responsibility to care for their own through all age groups.  There are approximately 800 Brethren business operations which are spread into about 40 towns and cities throughout New Zealand.  They are not the same as the Open Brethren who rejected the exclusive nature of the Exclusive Brethren.  The Open Brethren are a more numerous Christian denomination in New Zealand.

I understand that, in accordance with their beliefs they refrain from voting although they comply with the requirements of the Electoral Act and are registered electors. 
 
That does not mean they are not interested in the political process.  As the recent election campaign showed they are apparently concerned about the prosperity of this nation and the benefit of every individual in it.  During the course of the election campaign, they outlined five key areas which they considered were critical to New Zealand’s growth and prosperity.  They were:

* Defence;
* Decentralisation;
* Immigration;
* Superannuation; and
* Taxation.









They actively promoted reforms in those areas.  For example with taxation, they suggested that the present taxation system would be enhanced with further targeted incentives and provisions to encourage economic growth and suggested, among other things:

* Taxation incentives for superannuation and investment;
* Reducing company tax rates to harmonise with Australia;
* Increasing charitable donations rebate limit to encourage liberality and generosity; and
* Superannuation; and
* Tax assistance to single income families.










That is hardly the programme of the Taliban is it?  Nor can it be described as a sinister programme.

It is no joke to accuse the Exclusive Brethren, or any other lawful organisation in New Zealand, of being a terrorist organisation.  Terrorism is one of the scourges of the modern world.  It pre-dates September 11.  In the 1980’s and 1990’s there were many such incidents, including:

* The attack on the cruise ship Achille Lauro in October 1985 by members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation who shot and threw overboard a wheelchair bound American Jew, Leon Klinghoffer;
* The bombing on 21 December 1988 of Pan Am flight 103 from Frankfurt to New York which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 passengers and crew, along with 11 people on the ground;
* The explosion of a car bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in February 1993, killing six and injuring over 1000 people; and
* The explosion of truck bombs outside the United State’s Embassies in Nairobi and Darussalam killing 258 and injuring over 5000 people.


















After September 11 2001, the Security Council passed Resolution 1368 which unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms the attacks on the United States labelling them as a threat to international peace and security.  In Resolution 1390 of 16 January 2002, the Security Council directed that “all states shall take” certain measures with respect to all members of, among others, the Taliban and all those associated with them including:

* Freezing all funds, financial assets or economic resources of these persons or entities;
* Preventing the entry into or transit through their territories by such persons; and
* Preventing the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer to those persons of all arms and related materials.










This resolution resulted in the passage through the New Zealand Parliament of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.  That Act establishes a civil process to designate terrorists and criminal offences for supporting them.  So, for example, the Prime Minister may designate any entity as a terrorist entity if she has good cause to suspect that the entity has knowingly carried out or knowingly participated in the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts.

So alleging that a person is a terrorist in today’s world is similar to alleging that a person was a racist or sexist in the 1960’s.  It is not a charge which is lightly made. 

It is unacceptable for the Attorney-General, who as the principal law officer of the Crown has a responsibility to see that the laws are upheld for the benefit of all New Zealand citizens, to accuse a religious minority of such a serious charge.  It is hyperbolic, distinctly unfunny and very serious.

Imagine the response if the Attorney-General had made the following remark about Muslims: “It’s true there are Muslims and there are Muslims: some blow up tube trains and some rampage through French streets and some claim Mossad’s put something in the chewing gum to make Arab men susceptible to the seduction techniques of Jewesses.”  (Actually a quote from Mark Steyn in the Spectator of 12 November 2005).  Parker would be run out of town if he said that.

Obviously Mr Parker’s words in the House of Representatives the other night, while distasteful and contemptible, are protected by Parliamentary privilege.  Other Labour Party MP’s and officials have, however, made similar kinds of comments outside Parliament. 
 
I believe that such statements breach the Human Rights Act 1993 which prohibits religious discrimination. 

I think the Human Rights Commission should be very interested in this most recent form of religious discrimination against a small minority which is not very well understood.  I also think that the Exclusive Brethren should not put up with this kind of abuse any more and should lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission against those who have been making these kinds of statements in the media.  I doubt, however, that the Human Rights Commission would be particularly interested in examining this matter.  It is the ultimate politically correct organisation.  Protecting the interests of a small and badly understood religious minority would not come into that category.

Perhaps I am misjudging the Human Rights Commission.  I stand ready to be corrected.  If any complaint is made, I shall watch with interest the progression of the complaint through the system.

We all make hurtful comments from time to time.  I am no saint in this respect.  One off comments are one thing; a pattern of abuse is another.  These attacks on the Exclusive Brethren are not only wounding and unfair but amount to victimisation.  I think Labour Party MP’s have crossed the line in their attacks on the Exclusive Brethren.  There is a danger in any society to label unpopular minority groups in ways that amount to victimisation.  I think they are now effectively conducting a pogrom against this small minority, rather like the pogroms launched by the Tsarist government against the Jews in Russia in the late nineteenth century.  These attacks should stop.

I ask myself why other members of the broader Christian Church have not given greater support to the Exclusive Brethren.  The Churches correctly speak out on issues of social justice, but have been strangely quiet as these attacks have been mounted.  Why are they not defending their Brethren brothers and sisters? 

The Brethren represent a different Christian tradition from Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians or Orthodox but that does not mean that their views are to be rubbished and their members harassed as I understand has been happening in quite alarming numbers to Brethren children in schools in New Zealand.

And at the end of the day, what did the Brethren do that was wrong?  Was it in advocating a more competitive economy?  Was it because they were prepared to stand up and be counted?  Was it because they do not vote?  Many people, however, in this country do not vote even if they are enrolled as electors.  No, I think the primary reason for attacking them is that they are a small, friendless group within the Christian community and that in this increasingly secular society, they are regarded as fair game.

I predict that the Brethren will not be the only church group to be attacked over the next period.  The Pentecostal churches are probably a harder target because there are so many Pentecostals in this country.   From what I can tell, however, they have essentially the same outlook as the Exclusive Brethren.  Other Christian groups also share those views. 

As you know, the Prime Minister has been in Malta in the last week or so attending CHOGM, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting which is held every two years.  Last week she singled out trade, security and religious tolerance as important issues she wanted to discuss.  “The fight against terrorism will be a topic of discussion at the meeting.  I will be interested in possible synergies between our own support for regional interfaith dialogue and the Commonwealth’s consideration of promoting religious tolerance,” Helen Clark said.  I wonder whether she meant that there is too much religious tolerance, especially in relation to Exclusive Brethren, a group whom her secular mind cannot comprehend or bother to comprehend.  More likely, she is referring to the need for Christians to show religious tolerance to Muslims. 

As a liberal-conservative, I reject the Prime Minister’s narrow definition of religious tolerance.  I think New Zealanders should be tolerant of all religious views, not just Muslims and other large religious communities, but also the small and unpopular ones.  I think that the extreme attacks on the Exclusive Brethren are not only unfair but also worrying.  They should stop.


Ends