He was responding to Monday's open letter from over 400 religious leaders who, sight unseen, wanted the Bill voted down at the first reading, preventing it from going to a Select Committee for public comment.

Luxon added that the National Party needs to honour its agreement with ACT as part of a democratically elected MMP government with coalition partners.

"I have a coalition agreement [and a] commitment, I honour those commitments" Luxon said.

"We have a coalition agreement, very clear, [we] went to the election, we have an MMP system, people voted, those are the cards they gave us."

Luxon reiterated his position, explaining that while ACT would prefer a full public referendum after the Select Committee process, that is not going to happen.

No one has read the Treaty Principles Bill

ACT leader David Seymour confirmed that only a "broad outline" of the Bill was discussed at the Cabinet meeting before a draft version would be created and publicly released in November.

Seymour said that no one has read the Bill yet.

He told Newstalk ZB's Heather du Plessis-Allan on Monday that "the Government and the parties had agreed to the Bill's broad outline. It now goes off to Parliament's drafters who will take some time to write the exact wording".

He said the religious leaders who sent the open letter have tried to halt public comment at the Select Committee stage.

Seymour argued that the Churches' pushback undermined the democratic process and attempted to stifle debate.

He also accused the religious leaders of playing politics.

On Tuesday, CathNews reported that a range of Catholic individuals had signed the open letter.

Among New Zealand's six Catholic bishops, Michael Dooley, Steve Lowe and Archbishop Paul Martin signed the letter, as well as several sisters, priests and emeritus bishops.

CathNews also learned from some signatories that they had not seen a draft of the Treaty Principles Bill and were not fully aware of the content of the open letter before signing it.

In attacking the signatories and discrediting them, one said it seemed ironic that Seymour appeared to be trying to prevent them from engaging in the democratic process, then doing precisely what he accused them of doing.

Labour and Greens congratulate religious leaders

Labour and the Greens have congratulated the Christian leaders for condemning the Treaty Principles Bill.

Willie Jackson, Labour's Maori development spokesperson, praised them saying "I'm really pleased and congratulate them on their actions and their bravery... this takes some courage and bravery, and they deserve to be complimented and supported as far as I'm concerned".

Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party, expressed gratitude for the church leaders' strong stance.

She viewed their action as demonstrating a deep commitment to upholding the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Sources

• NZ Herald
• CathNews
• NZ Herald
• 1 News
• RNZ

The decision was met with enthusiasm by those opposed to abortion here, including opposition National MP for Tamaki Simon O'Connor.

Pro-choice groups such as Abortion Rights Aotearoa (ALRANZ) expressed alarm, not only for American women but for what this might signal for our country.

This has left Opposition Leader Christopher Luxon with a dilemma. He found himself caught up in questions that put a spotlight on his pro-life values, politics and integrity.

Luxon's anti-abortion beliefs are not news. In the days following his election as party leader late last year, when asked to confirm if, from his point of view, abortion was tantamount to murder, he clarified "that's what a pro-life position is".

Yet, in recent days, Luxon has repeatedly and emphatically sought to reassure voters National would not pursue a change to this country's abortion laws should it win government.

Abortion is legal in Aotearoa, decriminalised in 2020 within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act. It's clear Luxon hopes his assurances will appease those of a pro-choice view, the position of most New Zealanders according to polling in 2019.

Principle and pragmatism in leadership

It has long been argued good leadership is underpinned by strength of character, a clear moral compass and integrity - in other words, consistency between one's words and actions.

Whether a leader possesses the prudence to gauge what is a practically wise course of action in a given situation that upholds important values, or simply panders to what is politically safe and expedient, offers insights into their character.

Over time, we can discern if they lean more strongly toward being values-based or if they tend to align with what Machiavelli controversially advised: that to retain power a leader must appear to look good but be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position.

Of course both considerations have some role to play as no one is perfect. We should look for a matter of degree or emphasis. A more strongly Machiavellian orientation is associated with toxic leadership.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has characterised herself as a "pragmatic idealist". Her track record indicates a willingness to accept considerable political heat in defence of key values. This is seen, for example, in her sustained advocacy of COVID-related health measures such as vaccine mandates and managed isolation, even when doing so was not the politically expedient path to follow.

Luxon's leadership track record in the public domain is far less extensive. Much remains unknown or untested as to what kind of leader he is. Being leader of the opposition is, of course, a very different role to that of prime minister.

However, in his maiden speech Luxon described his Christian faith as something that anchors him and shapes his values, while also arguing politicians should not seek to force their beliefs on others.

His response to this week's controversy proves he is willing to set aside his personal values for what is politically expedient. This suggests he is less of an idealist and more a pragmatist.

This may be a relief to the pro-choice lobby, given his anti-abortion beliefs. But if the political calculus changes, what might then happen?

The matter is not settled

New Zealand's constitutional and legal systems differ from those of the US, but the Supreme Court decision proves it's possible to wind back access to abortion.

Even if Luxon's current assurance is sincerely intended, it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.

The National Council of Women's 2021 gender attitudes survey revealed a clear increase in more conservative, anti-egalitarian attitudes. Researchers at the disinformation project also found sexist and misogynistic themes feature strongly in the conspiracy-laden disinformation gaining influence in New Zealand.

If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand's abortion laws.

In such a situation, the right to abortion may not be the only one imperilled. A 2019 survey in the US showed a strong connection between an anti-abortion or "pro-life" stance and more general anti-egalitarian views.

It's clear Luxon is aiming to reassure the public he has no intentions to advance changes to our abortion laws. But his seeming readiness to set aside personal beliefs in favour of what is politically viable also suggests that, if the political landscape changes, so too might his stance.

A broader question arises from this: if a leader is prepared to give up a presumably sincerely held conviction to secure more votes, what other values that matter to voters might they be willing to abandon in pursuit of political power?

• Suze Wilson Senior Lecturer, School of Management, Massey University.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission

National's socially conservative MPs have gone to ground after MP Simon O'Connor was forced to take down social media posts which leader Christopher Luxon has called "triumphalist" and causing offence.

"As I understand it, there is no party position on these conscience issues. It is purely an individual position that caucus members take.

"And you will see, a number of [current MPs] voted against this, like myself (sic) when I was there."

The US Supreme Court decision on Friday to overturn Roe v Wade and allow states to ban abortions has raised conversations here, particularly given Luxon is himself an Evangelical Christian opposed to the right to an abortion. Read more

He has been identified as an evangelical Christian, which, if you'll pardon the religious cliché, covers a multitude of sins.

That's why I believe Chris Luxon owes New Zealanders a working definition of evangelical Christianity - and how he intends to practice it.

A private matter? Well, that might be true if Luxon was a person moving into private life.

Clearly, however, that is not the case.

Luxon has opted to become an even more public person than he was as Air New Zealand's CEO.

The core motivations of public persons are not matters to be evaded, they are matters to be explicated, elucidated and explained.

What, then, is generally understood by the term Christian evangelism?

At its core, evangelism is about the active spreading of Christ's teachings - especially among those who are ignorant of his message.

For a politician to identify himself as an evangelical Christian is, therefore, a matter of considerable importance.

If such politicians are genuine in their self-characterisation, then they will take every opportunity their public office provides to proselytise on behalf of their faith.

They will also feel obliged to bear witness against beliefs and practices they believe to be evil.

To do all they can to save the souls of those who are in the grip of sin. Christian evangelism is, above all else, faith in action.

It is, therefore, disingenuous (to say the least) for Luxon to present his evangelical convictions as having relevance only to himself and the congregation of the Upper Room Church to which he belongs.

The very name of his faith community argues against this claim.

The "Upper Room" mentioned in the gospels is the room to which Jesus and his disciples repaired on the night of his arrest.

In biblical tradition, it is the location of Christ's last supper.

The Upper Room thus represents the ignition-point of the chain of events that led to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.

It was Christianity's first church: Ground Zero, if you like, for Jesus's universal mission. In the Messiah's own words:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Does that sound like a private matter? Was the Upper Room really nothing more than the venue for a catered meal for Jesus of Nazareth and a few close friends? Is that it?

Obviously, not. Continue reading