KEY POINTS:
Just when members of Parliament thought it was safe to open the doors to their electorate offices, along come the Exclusive Brethren. A meeting between Brethren members and National's deputy leader, Bill English, in his deep south seat has reignited debate about the church's secret, if indirect, manipulations
in the 2005 general election. Worse, it seems to have opened a new question of who should be allowed in to see an MP, and who should decide which groups or individuals in society should be regarded as political untouchables.
The Labour Party, a target for the Brethren during the last campaign, is still trying to flog the dead horse of the church's influence over National by expressing horror at Mr English's meeting. Labour, its president Mike Williams suggested, would not meet the Exclusive Brethren and National did not exhibit the same judgment, despite its new leader vowing not to accept funding or other assistance from the church. Mr English is unmoved on either score. He accepts he had a meeting with church members, but explains that he did not know their beliefs before he met them and in any case does not exclude constituents because of their religious beliefs. At the same time, his leader, John Key, reinforces the party's decision not to seek assistance or campaign information from the Exclusive Brethren.
Both men are right. Mr English appears to have a healthier appreciation than Mr Williams of representative democracy. If electorate MPs take their roles seriously, they ought to hear from those in their electorates. They ought not to ban constituents because of their religion, however political some may have tried to make it, or their race, philosophy, sexual orientation or even political preferences. It would be easy for MPs to create long watchlists of people or groups holding contrary or objectionable views who could be denied access to the pure air breathed by the political class - criminals, the Labour Party, the National Party, the National Front, communists, supporters of smacking, animal liberationists, fathers' rights or billboards. It is one thing to meet people and hear from them. It is another whether MPs decide to take the matters further. Good representatives will weigh the viewpoints and make their own judgment on their merit.
What Mr English has recognised is that an association with unpalatable politics cannot be used to deny New Zealanders their chance to put their views to an MP. He is upfront about that. And he is an unfortunate target for Labour in that it was his National opponent and successor Don Brash who entertained the Exclusive Brethren - to his detriment during the election and subsequently with publication of the book The Hollow Men in November. Mr English, and to a lesser degree, Mr Key, escaped the taint of being involved in secret dealings.
It is right, too, for Mr Key to declare that National will not accept money or tactical assistance from the church. That is its right as a political party, as distinct from a grouping of parliamentary representatives. In practical terms it is unlikely that the visiting "Elect Vessel" or leader of the worldwide church could expect to meet any major political leader. The Exclusive Brethren's attempt to sway public opinion on issues upon which some of its members felt Labour and the Greens were vulnerable backfired spectacularly. No party could ignore public distaste for the secrecy of such involvement and, more importantly, the blurring of the line between church and state. The record of Christian political parties shows that New Zealanders do not like public affairs served as a stir-fry meal of politics and religion. They prefer each part to be clearly distinct on the plate.
