Labour and the Greens have reacted with predictable scepticism to Exclusive Brethren claims that the controversial foray by church members into the 2005 election campaign had nothing to do with the church itself, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial.

Brisbane businessman Tony McCorkell, the church's newly appointed spokesman, said this week there had been "no church-sponsored, organised involvement in anything political" and blamed the anonymous leafletting campaign on "overly enthusiastic members".

If his first remarks as church spokesman are any indication, the unworldly sect, whose members are not allowed to vote or socialise with non-members, has taken to the dubious art of public relations as swiftly as it took to the equally dubious art of political dirty tricks.

It is not credible to suggest that sect members in New Zealand, Australia and the United States just coincidentally decided at the same time to try to influence election results using the same secretive techniques. Nor is it credible to argue that the hundreds of sect members who helped National candidates during the 2005 campaign did so without direction from church leaders, or that the seven businessmen who funded the anti-Labour, anti-Green campaign just happened to be senior members of the church.

But politicians and the public can take some heart from Mr McCorkell's assertion that the way the church was dragged into the 2005 election was a "nightmare".

Putting aside the fact that no one other than the church's leaders "dragged" it anywhere, this is reason to hope the sect will conduct itself with more probity in future.

There is nothing wrong with the church expressing a view on who should govern the country, though some of its positions reek of hypocrisy. How can you excoriate the Government for running down the defence forces, but refuse to allow your members to join those same forces? How can you deny your members a vote but attempt to influence the votes of others?

However, debate is good for democracy. We need more of it, not less. Too many New Zealanders have become so disenchanted by the antics of our politicians that they have turned away from politics altogether.

That is not in anyone's interests. Democracy is enhanced by robust debate.

Whether it's stimulated by employer organisations, unions, the Exclusive Brethren or anyone else is beside the point. The one proviso is that those expressing a view should identify themselves.

The problem with the Brethren campaign was not that the church expressed an opinion, but that its members resorted to subterfuge to try to conceal their identities.

That has given the Government an excuse to hatch plans to restrict or ban so-called third party campaigns during elections. But a ban is not warranted or necessary.

New Zealanders are entitled under the Bill of Rights Act to impart and receive information, especially at times as critical as election campaigns. And so long as the public know who is paying the piper they know who is calling the tune. The Government should not forget that the Brethren campaign did more harm to National than to Labour.

Once the identities of those behind it became known, National's willingness to accept succour from such a bunch of weirdos raised serious questions about the judgement of its leaders.

The father stood pleading on the steps but his children would not come. When he tried to enter the house, one of the men standing guard on the veranda cried out that if he dared touch the doorknob, the wrath of God would come down on him, for he was an adulterer and no adulterer would enter that house. The father retreated to his car and called the police.

Since leaving the Exclusive Brethren in 2003 he had had little access to any of his eight children. Once you depart, the sect slams all doors behind you. But a hard-fought battle over three years ended in December with the Family Court granting him contact with the two youngest, aged eight and 13. He promised not to expose them to radio, TV, computers or propaganda against their faith. They were due to spend a first few days together in January.

Justice Robert Benjamin had taken the sect apart in his 100-page judgement delivered in Hobart. He denounced as "psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive" the lengths the Brethren were taking to discourage the children from seeing their father. He declared the children, the mother and witnesses against the father had all been subjected to pressure from the sect. He threatened fines and imprisonment if this did not end.

Benjamin addressed the elders of the sect: "A review of the authorities shows that these difficulties have been going on for 30 years under the Family Law Act. It must surely not be beyond your intellect and wit to find a dimension in your beliefs so that they may reconcile with the law of this country and the need for children to know both of their parents."

Three weeks later their father sat in his car in a Launceston suburb as the police tried in vain to persuade his son and daughter to join him. The arrival of the law calmed things down at the house, but the children would not budge. After two hours the father drove away with their suitcases still in the boot. Within days he had begun proceedings to have the orders of the Family Court enforced. And the Brethren leadership mobilised: a $50,000 fund was set up to challenge Benjamin's orders, and the world leader of the sect flew down to Tasmania.

Bruce Hales has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid being photographed in the 18 months since the Exclusive Brethren became big news. He has outwitted snappers from Fairfax, News Ltd and the television networks even though we all know where he lives on Sydney's lower North Shore, and where he works at his prosperous office fit-out business in Ermington. But his precautions came unstuck in Launceston.

On January 24 Hales took a private jet to Tasmania. He says he was flying down for Bible study classes, but his visit included a meeting with the mother of those two children. When his Cessna Citation landed, the scene caught the attention of a local plane spotter. A car, two vans and about 10 men were clustered round the jet when a fat man in a white shirt climbed down onto the tarmac. The plane spotter got the first pictures for years of the man known to the faithful as the Elect Vessel, the Man of God and Mr Bruce.

Whatever else can be said about this man, Hales has put the Brethren in the news. Before he inherited the leader's mantle from his father, this prosperous sect of about 40,000 members was barely known. But in 2004 Hales instigated a dramatic break with the past by taking the sect into "worldly" politics. Brethren fortunes have since been spent campaigning for the re-election of John Howard and George Bush; against same-sex marriage legislation around the world; against Helen Clark in New Zealand and against the Greens on both sides of the Tasman.

The Brethren did what they could to cover their tracks, but since the pattern of sect politicking became clear 18 months ago the cult has found itself in the spotlight. These strange people with their strange rules - no voting, no eating with outsiders, no university, no shorts ("God has no pleasure in the legs of a man"), no films, no radio, no television, no internet and no mobile phones - were objects of public, and increasingly hostile, curiosity.

A network of "out" Brethren was waiting to help the media. They have lost their families, their friends and usually their businesses when the sect closed its doors behind them. They have emerged, like prisoners after serving time, to make a fresh start in the world. Almost all are men. They talk of hopeless fights in the Family Court for contact with their children, and of grandchildren they may never see. "I think," one said to me cautiously, "I have four grandsons."

Scrutiny has brought troubles for the sect on a number of fronts. The Man of God, to counter "non-factual and ill-informed information about the Exclusive Brethren Church", has appointed a fresh spokesman who promises more candid access to the cult. Young and heavy-set, Tony McCorkell was thrown out of the Brethren with his whole family when he was eight. "The MoG doesn't see me as being excommunicated," he explained. "He sees me as an innocent victim of my father." McCorkell's big news is that the Brethren are not going to campaign in the coming federal election as they did in the last. "Their biggest fear was Mark Latham because they thought they were going to lose funding for their schools under Latham. That was the big problem. "This year they don't have that threat. And they quite like Kevin Rudd because he claims to be a Christian. I don't think it supports John over Kevin this year. I think it's more: well either one, we don't mind. But they didn't want Latham because Latham was a threat to their schools."

His master's voice ... Tony McCorkell. Photo: Kate Geraghty

The sect's tiny schools are controversial because the Brethren frown on computers, the internet, sex education, evolution and universities. Fewer than 1500 students are enrolled across Australia, but the cost to the Commonwealth is running at roughly $5 million a year. McCorkell's view is that the Brethren's surprise 2004 entry into "worldly" politics — for more than 150 years believers have been forbidden to vote — was essentially to defend that funding stream.

But the MoG doesn't like the tactics his people are using. "He expresses regret for New Zealand," McCorkell reports. "He reckons that's just a nightmare. That's ridiculous. That's terrible … They went too far."

What does he mean by that? "I think it was the hiring of private investigators, because it brought a bit of flak. With regards to Tasmania, they regret having masks and being disorganised and having false addresses and all that sort of stuff."

Brethren fight dirty. In the New Zealand election in 2005 they hired a private detective to hunt for scandal in the lives of Labour MPs including the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. In the Tasmanian election last year they gave fake and misleading addresses on advertisements and pamphlets, and had anti-Greens billboards towed through the streets of Hobart by men wearing freak masks.

We won't see any of that this year, says McCorkell. "Suffice to say they're not going to do the same this year. They're not getting involved like they did last time. They're just keeping a low profile at this election."

In a statement issued late last week he repeated the old claim that believers were acting individually and spontaneously.

"The Church does not dictate to individual members on matters such as these; the Brethren's first line of defence at all times is very extensive prayer, he said."

But the sect is not out of the woods on these issues. The Australian Electoral Commission is continuing to investigate the Brethren's role in the last federal election. It accepts that a company set up by a Brethren businessman in 2004 was the sole source of nearly $400,000 spent by various members of the sect on that year's campaign. But according to a statement issued yesterday to the Herald, it "continues to examine other disclosure matters that came to the AEC's notice during the inquiry into Exclusive Brethren".

In Tasmania the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Sarah Bolt, has until the end of next month to decide whether she will subpoena all the relevant financial records of the state and federal Liberal Party, the Exclusive Brethren and the party's advertising agency, Master Advertising, to discover who funded three newspaper advertisements placed by the Brethren in last year's state election.

First up they were paid for by the Liberal Party. The party's state director, Damien Mantach, and advertising agent, Chris Guesdon, both said this was "an administrative bungle" but they will not say who ultimately footed the bill. Nor will the party, nor will the Brethren. McCorkell said: "We simply do not know the details of who paid for what, as the church was not a party to it."

In Canberra the Greens leader, Bob Brown, is once again trying to persuade his fellow senators to investigate the sect. His latest motion will come to a vote next week, but it is not looking good. Labor is making up its mind, but the Democrats are uncomfortable that the focus would be on one church only. They are proposing, instead, a Senate inquiry into the abuse by any church of exemptions granted on the basis of religious belief.

Brown condemns that approach as timid. "The Exclusive Brethren has entered into the political arena in a way quite different to any other faith, and the inquiry is to investigate that difference and open it to people who have knowledge of that, including ex-Brethren."

The Brethren, in turn, accuse Brown of electioneering. Late in the week McCorkell issued a statement declaring Brown's timing suspicious. "I suggest it demonstrates Brown's political agenda, and his attempt to bully Brethren members into silence. Brown should focus on policy, not payback."

Last Tuesday Justice Benjamin of the Family Court declared he would have no more bullying from the sect to undermine his orders. He called into court the mother, the children and local Brethren and declared the steps they had taken to prevent the father's contact in mid-January were "extraordinary and appalling". Benjamin entirely rejected claims that it was of their own volition that the children had refused to go with their father.

He sentenced the mother and the two men who had stood guard on the veranda to four months' jail - suspended on condition that his contact orders are complied with for the following year. "These children," he said, "are entitled to have a relationship with their father."

That is a proposition that challenges the triple power of the Man of God to expel sect members from family, faith and business. With the assistance of the Brethren fighting fund, the mother is now mounting a wide-ranging appeal against Benjamin's rulings.

But the next round of this 30-year battle is close: the children are due to spend a week with their father in their next school holidays.

Extract:

Meanwhile, demonstrating an absence of psychological middle ground between victim and bully that can also be found in a number of local bloggers, three members of the Brethren have been handed suspended jail terms over what an Australian judge slammed as the "extraordinary and appalling … emotional abuse" of two children.

The campaign to keep the children from their father flouted court orders and was funded and directed by the church leadership. I keenly await the response of our local winger apologists.

Last week, a former Brethren member was sentenced to five years' jail, bringing to an end a squalid saga in which a young girl's sexual abuse was prolonged through repeated inaction by the church and its members. The abuser appears to have taken advantage of the fact that the little girl's father had been forced out of her life by the church.

It is my humble opinion that an organisation that pleads persecution in such circumstances has a bit of a nerve. People and the communities they form deserve the respect we should accord to any human as a default. Bullying cult leaders don't.

Extract:

They refuse to integrate.

They refuse to accept Australian values.

They refuse to obey Australian laws.

... And yet John Howard has never said a word against them, never tried to stir up fear and hatred in the community against them, never claimed that as Australian citizens they are required to conform to 'our' values...

Why?

Extract:

I expect you are wondering what the Exclusive Brethren have been up to recently. It's funny you should ask; you see, they are feeling persecuted so we had better be careful with what we say. Apparently the government has made over 330 demeaning comments about them in Parliament.

Of course, the Brethren would know this because, as any visitor to Parliament will tell you, they are always there, sitting in the public gallery. A friend of the lovely Maria von Trapp once observed that the Brethren go to Parliament to look after their investment. Someone else suggested that a trip to Parliament is an outing for Brethren women: a relief from the drudgery of housework and Christian marriage. Whatever the reasons, it is obvious that they have been paying attention.

Of course, nobody will believe their claims to be persecuted, except the folks at Sir Humphrey's and those at TBR and most of the rest of the rightosphere. The Herald also reports that support for the Brethren has come from an unlikely quarter: the Buddhists. One Joan Buchanan (fine old Tibetan name, that one) told them: "when you are disenfranchised and marginalised and the media is misrepresenting your views, I'd like to welcome you to our world. Kia ora." Oh gawd; like a bridge over troubled water, I will lay me down. Since when have the Buddhists been disenfranchised or marginalised? Misrepresented I can believe, since nobody can understand a word of what they say; but persecuted, I think not. It is years since they last had a pogrom in Grey Lynn and I am quite sure that arts administrators are no longer required to submit to religious tests. Of course the urge to smack your Buddhist up is often strong, particularly when they make that beatific smile as they tell you about the sound of one hand clapping. Even more so when they demand not tolerance, but respect. But we restrain ourselves because we celebrate diversity and at least they are not Hare Krishnas. Bloody hippies.

Anyway, back to the plot: the Brethren's wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred at an inter-faith forum in Hamilton, organised by the Human Rights Commission in aid of its statement on religious diversity. The Brethren, true to form, distributed leaflets. Then they claimed that those other leaflets they had distributed, all $1.2 million of them, were paid for personally by the members who had organised them. Funny that, because these were identical leaflets to those that a member in Australia paid personally for; funnier still, similar acts of charity took place in the USofA and Sweden, of all places. Perhaps this synchronicity is testament to the power of prayer. Whatever the cause, it worked in Australia, as The Age attests.

Members of the Exclusive Brethren have accused the Government of "systematic persecution" of their religion since the last election campaign.

Three members of the 7500-strong church yesterday warned an inter-faith forum in Hamilton that other minority religions could be persecuted if they dared to criticise Labour.

A Mangere member, Barry Pinker, said some church members chose to produce anti-Government leaflets in the 2005 election campaign "out of concern for the prosperity of our nation both morally and materially".

In speech notes which he did not deliver in full, he said the church's aim for "a simple and unworldly lifestyle apart from the aspects of the world that allow for moral degradation" had become more important because of laws such as those legalising prostitution and civil unions.

But he said the message of the Brethren election leaflets had never been debated. Instead, "what has followed has been a systematic persecution of the fellowship the campaigners happened to belong to".

He said:

* Prime Minister Helen Clark referred to the church several times as a "weird cult".

* Cabinet minister David Parker called it "the Christian version of the Taleban".

* Labour MP Georgina Beyer asked for its members to be "dragged out of the country".

"These attacks, included in over 330 demeaning comments made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, have been a very hurtful experience, especially to the many of our community who were unconnected to activity in the 2005 election," he said.

"If the leaders of a nation attack and demean a minority, where do they turn? Our fear is that any of the minorities represented here today could be the next."

He said later that the Brethren members who organised the election leaflets paid for them personally.

He and his two colleagues distributed a pamphlet at the forum explaining that the Brethren followed a biblical principle of "separation".

"Separation principally occurs in matters of fellowship and includes social activities such as eating and drinking, membership of societies and entertainment," it says. "Social activities must be shared with those who participate in Holy Communion according to scriptural teaching."

For that reason, members did not vote in elections.

Delegates from other faiths at the forum approached the three Brethren members afterwards to praise their courage in speaking out, even though there was little support for their proposal that Christianity was the basis of the country's religion.

An Orewa Buddhist, Joan Buchanan, told them in the full forum: "When you are disenfranchised and marginalised and the media is misrepresenting your views, I'd like to welcome you to our world. Kia ora."

But a Wellington Jew, Dave Moskovitz, asked: "How do we combat bigotry and intolerance, because that exists in the wider society? How do we deal with intolerance? To what extent do we tolerate intolerant people?"

He said afterwards that it was "highly ironic" the Brethren were complaining about intolerance when they refused to tolerate homosexuals or prostitutes.

Extract:

The Exclusive Brethren is the stern and abstemious sect perhaps best known for rules banning voting, for its head-scarved female members, its leader called the Elect Vessel and its funding of an anti-gay campaign featuring men in pig masks hauling a billboard around Hobart. The 15,000-strong Australian Brethren don't watch television, nor do they listen to the radio (although they do read newspapers), but they are nevertheless so concerned about recent adverse publicity they have appointed a spokesman, Brisbane businessman Anthony McCorkell. McCorkell, whose family left the Brethren when he was a child, yesterday said he still had many Brethren relatives. He added he couldn't say whether he was paid by the Brethren or, if so, how much his stipend was. "I'm not free to say under the confidentiality agreement," he said. Once a member of a political party, he wouldn't say which one. As a layman, he agreed he was walking a very difficult line representing the Brethren and he agreed he would no doubt end up in trouble. "I know, I know. I already am."

One of the principles which has long underpinned free, fair and informed elections in Australia is that where a person or organisation spends a substantial amount of money in an effort to influence the way people vote, the process should be transparent.

There is no law against people or organisations spending as much as they want to in order to promulgate their message. In a free society, any person should be able to spend as much money as they can muster in order to promulgate their message or increase their political influence. The requirement is simply that we should know who is paying the piper when they are calling the tune.

This requirement is expressed in law in several ways. The two most well known are the requirement that election advertisements be accompanied by information identifying the person who authorises the comments (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 s.328) and the requirement that those incurring "electoral expenditure" must declare that expenditure. This requirement extends to third parties, who are not actually contesting the election but who seek to influence its outcome (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 s.309).

The idea of the third-party requirement is to regulate the spending of what is called in the USA "soft money": money which would not ordinarily need to be declared as a political contribution, but which has the same effect as such a contribution. If I provide a donation to a political party in order for the party to make a commercial, I am donating hard money. If I pay for the commercial to be made, then I am donating soft money.

In Australia, until recently, it appeared that s.309 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act dealt with soft money reasonably effectively. Until, that is, the political activities of the group known as the Exclusive Brethren came to light. The Exclusive Brethren are, according to their website a worldwide Christian fellowship with 40,000 adherents. Their approach to government, again according to their website, is as follows (edited for length but not, I trust, emphasis):

Exclusive Brethren believe in Government and are subject to it […] Their approach is non-political. They do not vote , but hold Government in the highest respect as God's ministers, used by Him to restrain evil and provide conditions for the promotion of the glad tidings. […] Contact with members of parliament or congress is encouraged to express a moral viewpoint of legislation in relation to the rights of God and this ongoing communication is found to be acceptable and productive.

Until recently, the group has only been mentioned in the Australian Senate three times, in 1982 and twice in 1993, in relation to an exemption which enabled members to refrain from union membership (in line with their teachings). Following the 2004 election, however, their political involvement became contentious following allegations that they funded political advertising opposing the Greens' policy on the medicinal use of cannabis. Greens Senator Christine Milne stated:

In the last federal election, in which I was a candidate for the Senate, I was attacked by brochures appearing in the media which were authorised with a single name and address in Sydney. We were unable to establish even whether that person lived at the address. Even if we had, we could not have known at that time that the person concerned represented the Exclusive Brethren. They paid for extensive print advertising which misrepresented entirely the views of the Greens in that election. We then discovered that exactly the same pamphlet, just changed from “Australia” to “New Zealand”, was used to try to discredit the Clark government and the Greens in New Zealand. It has been used throughout the country. What we later discovered was, of course, that the Exclusive Brethren had had meetings with the Liberal Party in the context of that election. None of that will turn up in the political disclosures (Senate Hansard, June 16, 2006).

The Greens, as you might expect, tried to follow the chain of political responsibility for the campaign against them. In doing so, they ran into a brick wall. Responsibility was taken by a private company, Willmac Enterprises. The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that the company is owned by an Exclusive Brethren member. According to SMH, it was incorporated three weeks before the election, had assets of $10 in cash, and yet managed to spend $370,461 on election campaign material (Sydney Morning Herald, January 20, 2007).

The Australian Electoral Commission, following a 12-month investigation, concluded:

Expenditure on all seven advertisements and pamphlets was disclosed in a third party return by Willmac Enterprises following the 2004 federal election, and that consequently no outstanding disclosure obligation exists in relation to these advertisements and pamphlets. Further, there is no evidence that Willmac Enterprises received any gifts or donations from other sources that contributed to the costs of the advertisements and pamphlets (AEC advice, December 19, 2006, available at www.aec.gov.au).

Let me be clear at this point: frankly, I do not care whether the Exclusive Brethren fund political campaigns against the Greens. Good luck to them - it is a free democractic country and the more voices involved in political discussion the better.

It is concerning, however, that these events have laid out a pattern for anyone to systematically dupe both the electoral laws and the Australian people.

It appears, following the model set out by the Exclusive Brethren (I beg your pardon, I mean, of course, by Willmac Enterprises) that any group which wishes to, can hide its responsibility for electoral comment by forming a company for that precise purpose, and interposing that company between the true donors and the electoral disclosure system.

Let us imagine for a moment, that we have formed a hypothetical group devoted to something completely unsupportable - say, a group devoted to reasserting the original White Australia policy. We have $200,000 at our disposal. All we need do is create a company with an appropriately benign name and a single director; put our $200,000 into the company's resources, then allow the company to spend it as it will. The company puts in a third-party return to the AEC, and the true donors will forever remain unknown.

A less outrageous example: currently, donations to political parties which exceed $10,000 in value must be declared. This time, let's set up our company and allow major donors to provide their money to the company. The company, in turn, makes and declares a massive donation to a major political party. As far as the AEC is concerned, all is well. But as far as the electorate is concerned, who is paying the piper? Who is calling the tune to which we all must eventually dance?

Under the circumstances, the election to be called later this year may well be free, and may well be fair, but is very unlikely to be transparent.

THE sentencing of Lindsay Ronald Jensen yesterday for abusing a young girl in Albury brings almost to an end a saga of squalor and betrayal that has embroiled the religious sect the Exclusive Brethren and its leadership for four years.

Jensen, 49, an imposing man nearly two metres tall, was sentenced to five years' jail on four counts of indecent assault and one of sexual intercourse without consent. Judge Gay Murrell found the offences occurred when Jensen was in a position of trust and responsible for the girl's welfare. She set a non-parole period of three years.

The girl was nine when the assaults took place in 2002. Her parents were estranged, and according to the iron rules of the Brethren she had little contact with her father. But she was often in close contact that year with Jensen, a leading member of the Brethren in the city.

Judge Murrell found the relationship between the child and her abuser "was brought about because of membership of the church". But the sect did nothing effective when the child complained about Jensen in early 2003. Some months later the child was quizzed by two senior women in the Albury congregation, but still no action was taken.

The Brethren's new spokesman, Tony McCorkell, told the Herald that although the women were not "overly convinced" by the accusations, local sect leaders tried to dissuade Jensen from attending board meetings at the Brethren school because they thought him "loose-moralled" and feared "maybe this could be true".

Decisive action was finally taken by non-Brethren teachers at the sect's school when Jensen's presence there one day in mid-August 2003 provoked another young girl to storm out calling: "You touched me up. I'm not going to be here at the school while you're here." Mr McCorkell said teachers reported the incident to the NSW Department of Community Services.

Mr McCorkell said it was only at this point that the world leader of the church, Bruce Hales - a Sydney businessman known to the faithful as the Elect Vessel and the Man of God - learnt what was happening in Albury. "I can confirm - and I believe without a shadow of a doubt - Bruce Hales didn't even know about the situation, according to him, until it had already been reported to DOCS."

Jensen was excluded from the day-to-day life of the church, but his exile lasted only four months. "There is a whole heap of bitching and moaning and fighting and carrying on in Albury church," Mr McCorkell said. "Jensen's wife is running around saying to people 'he's been excommunicated and he hasn't even been arrested yet. This is outrageous. This is slanderous' … So there's a lot of pressure on the church to restore him back into the church. So that's what happens."

The young girl went to Albury police the next day. Jensen was expelled from the cult after his arrest.

The Brethren are in the process of expelling his wife, Jenny, and all his children. Mrs Jensen told the District Court yesterday that she had been shunned by the sect.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Brethren extended their sympathy to the victim and her family. "The church shares the community's revulsion of sexual abuse and seeks to do whatever it can to prevent it from occurring and to ensure if further instances occur they are reported to the authorities without delay."

Extract:

FIFTEEN environmental groups have been warned they could be stripped of their status as charities and be forced to pay taxes for engaging in political activity, amid claims the Howard Government wants to silence its critics.

The warnings follow an Australian Taxation Office probe into complaints that groups masquerading as charities are devoting their activities to campaigning against the Government. Documents obtained by The Weekend Australian under Freedom of Information laws also suggest right-wing church group the Exclusive Brethren is facing ATO scrutiny over political activities.

**Revised with additions**

The Australian Electoral Commission has not finalised its inquiry into massive pro-government and anti-Greens spending by people linked with the secretive Exclusive Brethren sect in the 2004 federal election.

The AEC told Senate Estimates committee hearings last night that Willmac Enterprises, registered less than a month before the October 2004 poll, spent more than $300,000 on (anti-Greens) advertising and pamphlets in NSW, South Australia and Tasmania.

Seven electoral items identified by Senator Bob Brown to the AEC were funded by Willmac. However these items account for only half of Willmac’s total election spending. The investigation is continuing.

Willmac Enterprises moved from North Rocks in Sydney to Lake Cargellico in western NSW before closing down on 25 September 2006. The company had 10 shares for which $10 was paid, held beneficially by Mark William Mackenzie of 11 Baden Powell Place, North Rocks NSW 2151. Senator Brown says that this address was unoccupied at the time of the 2004 election.

A senior AEC officer told the Senate that “we’re making further inquiries” but he would not disclose the nature of the inquiries.

The Exclusive Brethren forbid voting.

The Electoral Act requires all donors to companies or other entities involved in elections to be disclosed.

"The question is: how could a company worth $10 pay $300,000 for electioneering?" Senator Brown said.

“The inquiry is far too slow and unsatisfactory. The Australian Federal Police should have been asked to assist,” Greens Leader Bob Brown said.

Further information: Ebony Bennett 0409 164 603

More evidence has emerged of the power of the Exclusive Brethren's lobbying in Canberra, with the sect's world leader giving thanks for the "unexpected recognition" from former federal education minister Brendan Nelson.

The Age has obtained a 2004 passage of Brethren "ministry" — transcribed words of Sydney-based world leader Bruce D. Hales and other sect figures — in which they discuss their schools.

"(The schools were) set up to deliver the young people from the world," Mr Hales told followers on July 24, 2004.

"We don't want to go back to it, we don't want to be stupid enough to go back to the world, otherwise the Lord might take away our liberties, might take away what the Government has given us. The Government is very favourable; been favourable to us this week, hasn't it, Mr David?"

Another senior Brethren man, David Stewart, replies: "Yes, very clearly. … Very ready support from the Minister for Education."

Mr Hales: "Yes, well, we need to be thankful for it. You get the unexpected recognition of what the saints (the Brethren) represent. You don't expect it, and then they give it to you, they're compelled to give it to you."

Mr Hales' words make it clear that Brethren lobbyists, including Mr Stewart, had met then education minister Dr Nelson in the preceding days.

The Education Department has confirmed that, during 2004, Dr Nelson had representations from the Brethren, and agreed to give them an exemption from testing the computer literacy of year 6 and year 10 students.

That year, computer literacy was made a condition of Federal Government funding of private schools, but at the time the Brethren shunned computers, believing them to be instruments of the devil.

Brethren spokesman Tony McCorkell said yesterday that the ministry reference merely recognised the responsive hearing given to the delegation by Dr Nelson at the 2004 meeting.

He said the Brethren's concern at the time had been that paperwork associated with its private schools would need to be lodged with the department electronically. Dr Nelson assured them they could still lodge returns on paper.

Brethren are now allowed to use computers on a restricted basis.

Dr Nelson did not respond to queries yesterday.

The Brethren received $6.6 million in federal school funding in 2005.

Meanwhile, a Brethren elder, Phillip McNaughton, has suggested on Sydney radio that the sect is relaxing its insistence that those who have left the sect have no contact with their families.

"I would have thought they would be able to speak to them," he said.

But Ron Fawkes, a former Australian leader of the sect, who has not seen any of his six children for 22 years, said Mr McNaughton was being "very, very casual with the truth".

"Parents right around the world haven't been able to see their families," he said.

Transcript

Station: ABC 702 SYDNEY Date: 13/02/2007

Program: DRIVE Time: 03:39 PM

Compere: RICHARD GLOVER

Item: DISCUSSION CONTINUES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN AND THEIR RECENT INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS. INTERVIEW WITH PHIL MCNAUGHTON, A CURRENT MEMBER OF THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN.

INTERVIEWEES: PHIL MCNAUGHTON, EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN

RICHARD GLOVER:  This afternoon we've been talking a little about the Exclusive Brethren and trying to understand what makes them tick, what their beliefs are and what their new involvement in politics seems to be. We've talked to David Milliken the Uniting Church Minister already and that interesting phone call from John in Castle Hill who described how his family left the order or the religion when he was about 18 years old.

What a – he said – courageous decision his parents made to leave and the ramifications of it on his family, with basically them being unable to see even his grandparents, certainly friends and his mother's identical twin sister. Just really ignoring her when they passed in the street, so complete was the shunning that he said the Exclusive Brethren believed in. 1300 222 702 is the number. Phil McNaughton is a current member of the Exclusive Brethren and he has rung in. Good afternoon, Phil...

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Good afternoon, Richard.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Now, you were listening in to some of the things that were said. Was it a fair account of what your religion believes?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I haven't listened to a lot of the show, Richard, but I just, if I may, make the comment that Dr Milliken, we've never heard from him directly at all. As far as I know he hasn't made contact with us or visited our Churches face to face. We'd be happy to meet with him in a harmonious way so that we could tell him more about our Church. I'm not sure who his sources have been.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Well I think he was saying he has helped, in some cases, people who have left the Church try to regain contact with their parents.

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I see. Well…

RICHARD GLOVER:  Let's take the opportunity now because we don't often get to speak to people from the Brethren. Can we run through some of those beliefs. Is it true that for the most part you don't listen to TV and radio and so forth?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: That would be true is that we don't have television and radio. We do have newspapers to keep up to date with the news.

RICHARD GLOVER:  And we were told that there is a belief that women shouldn't adorn themselves, for instance, which means that women tend not to cut their hair. Is that right?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Oh they would wear a covering when they came to Church, Richard. As that's mentioned by St Paul in Corinthians.

RICHARD GLOVER:  And John who rang in described being – going to a normal public school, but the 20 or so Brethren kids being really requested by their parents to eat their lunch or play lunch separately from the other children?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I'm not aware of that particular case Richard, but just to explain to you briefly how we regard separation is that eating is fellowship so from a social point of view we would socialise with those who partake of Holy Communion. But that doesn't mean that - we don't live in gated communities. Most of our businesses, the clients, customers would be nonBrethren. We would have probably more nonBrethren staff in our businesses than Brethren. So we do interact with the community generally.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Sure, but generally children in a playground situation would eat their lunch separately because it's considered fellowship?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Yes they may well do that Richard if their parents so wish. We would say that was a matter for the parents.

RICHARD GLOVER:  The controversial thing that seems to then emerge today is this business of shunning. When somebody loses faith in the religion it is said that the other members turn their back on them pretty thoroughly and David was explaining that's because you really regard the person as having moved away from the light to really a relationship with Satan. Is that a fair summary?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I think that's a little extreme Richard to say moved to Satan. Some may give up the practice of scripture that the Brethren would believe in, but I don't think we would regard anyone as moving closer to Satan.

RICHARD GLOVER:  But people seem to say that at that point you really cut off contact with them. The example was used by John as his mum who's got an identical sister he said, and the identical sister would not acknowledge the mother. And similarly when they went to his grandparent – one of the grandparent's funeral – the other mourners did not acknowledge him and his father because they were no longer part of the religion. Would that happen generally?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I wouldn't have thought that would have happened generally. I don't know about that specific case of John, Richard.

RICHARD GLOVER:  No, no, but generally.

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I wouldn't have thought so.

RICHARD GLOVER:  So someone can leave the religion and still maintain connections with their parents and children and so forth?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I would have thought they would be able to speak to them, but they wouldn't be able to socialise with them because of – as I mentioned before as to eating is fellowship. But I would have been able to have thought they would have had contact, but of course it's up to the member to decide how much contact they wish to have.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Okay but they wouldn't be allowed to share a meal for instance?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: No.

RICHARD GLOVER:  No. The other thing that's controversial and I'd love you to tell us about is the involvement in politics because David said he was unable to explain the theological change that had happened within the Brethren because he felt that the very ideology of separation – which he understood would preclude you from getting involved in politics – and yet there seems to be this new involvement in politics?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Well perhaps if I explain it. The Church itself doesn't participate in politics, but its member would pray for government, regardless of which political party was in office. Our members would abstain from voting on conscientious grounds, but individual members are free to support causes or principles in which they believe, just as anyone else in a democratic society.

RICHARD GLOVER:  But some people say, for instance, that the Brethren or at least Brethren members have been paying for advertisements against the Greens in Tasmanian politics, for instance? That seems to be like a real involvement with the world, rather than a stepping back from worldly things.

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I see, but they would be free to do that to support causes or advocate principles for which they believe or maybe moral principles of some concern they wish to stand up for.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Even though that seems to be an involvement in the world?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Well they were seeking to make testimony; make testimony for scriptural principles, for example as to maybe what they regard as moral decay and wish to stand up for right moral principles, Christian principles.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Sure, sure. Look what about this business with the Family Court? Is it true that the Brethren are lobbying the Family Court so that any situations where perhaps one parent is wayward in your view, that you would ask the court to take that into account in determining whether that child should have – that parent should have access to the child?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: In our view Richard it's always the paramount concern is for the children of the broken marriage. Many of these cases are very sad cases, but I must point out that Brethren members - divorce and separation is less than one twentieth of the national rate. So there are very, very few cases involving Brethren members.

But we wouldn't be lobbying the Family Court in any special way. From time to time the Family Law Act has been under – open for expression of interest from various groups and the Brethren have made that opportunity to make representation as to the way they would like to see children's beliefs respected.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Yeah, that's a fair summary is that you'd like to see – let's take a situation where dad has left the Church, mum and child are still in it. You would like to limit dad's access to that child on the basis of religious belief?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Not quite like that. It would be that to the children's religious belief would be respected by dad and not that the Church and the mother not be denigrated, but likewise the mother would have an obligation not to denigrate dad either.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Your critics say your desire goes further than that and that you'd really rather see the father shunned and not have any contact at all?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: No, no, that is extreme. Of course it's really up to the mother or the father as the case may be to decide that it's not a matter for the Church.

RICHARD GLOVER:  But your critics of course say – they say that there are cases where you're virtually hiding children away from the wayward parent?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I'm not aware of any cases like that. They are a very, very small fraction of cases before the Family Court, Richard.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Of course, of course. And can I just ask you finally have you tried to lobby any politicians yourself or are you aware of these meetings with Mr Howard and Mr Ellison and so forth – Senator Ellison and so forth?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I think I did write under expression of interest that was called for under the family law matter when it came up a few years ago when the Government was calling for expressions of interest.

RICHARD GLOVER:  But you personally haven't met with any politicians?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: I have met with Mr Ruddock who's my local member.

RICHARD GLOVER:  And how many times have you met with Mr Ruddock?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Once.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Because I know that was one of the questions in Parliament that I think wasn't completely answered today.

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: But he's my local member.

RICHARD GLOVER:  And that was on a Family Court matter was it?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: That was included amongst the topics of conversation.

RICHARD GLOVER:  And did you feel that you got a good hearing from Mr Ruddock?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: He was very fair. He took the matter like he would take up for any other citizen and take our request up.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Phil McNaughton has rung in he's a current member of the Exclusive Brethren. I think he might be Senior National Representative of EB – I think Rory's just looked that up on Google.

Phil I must say some listeners are curious if there is this attitude to radio and television how did you guys know that the discussion was happening this afternoon on...

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: One Brethren person rang me up and said that there was something on the ABC Radio as to the Brethren, why don't you give them a call.

RICHARD GLOVER:  So at that point did you feel able to – since there was a particular discussion – able to turn on the radio at that point? I'm just curious?

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: No I haven't got a radio to turn on I just took my friend's attitude that they were – it was accurate and I made the call.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Yeah well you're kind to call us and we appreciate the chance to speak to you. Maybe if I put you back to Rory he could take your phone number so that when this comes up again we can speak to you directly.

PHIL MCNAUGHTON: Thank you, Richard.

RICHARD GLOVER:  Yeah I'll just put you on – Rory you might just take Phil's number because it is a rare opportunity to speak to the Exclusive Brethren. They haven't been quoted much in public so Phil was kind to ring us up and give us his point of view.