Transcript

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

Listen Now

Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program.

In December last year, after a three-year battle, a father who left the Exclusive Brethren three years ago was granted access to his two youngest children, aged 8 and 11 by the Family Court. But the conditions were very strict. The children aren't allowed access to radio or television, or even any contact with non-members of the sect, while they're in the father's charge.

Justice Benjamin refused to rule on the father's claim that the Exclusive Brethren were a harmful cult. But in his judgment, he described the Brethren's attempts to prevent the children seeing their estranged father, as 'psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive.' He also referred to 30 years of conflict between the Brethren and the Family Law Act.

Then last month, the same judge handed down four months suspended jail sentences against the children's mother, an older son, and her son-in-law—all still members of the Brethren—for breaching his orders and preventing an access visit.

Well as a result of this case, public attention on the Exclusive Brethren appears to be shifting towards a new focus on the rights of children. Last year, in federal parliament, Senator Bob Brown was angry because the Brethren had funded a political campaign against the Greens. He called for a Senate Inquiry and he's still hoping that the Labor party and the Democrats will support an inquiry when the matter is decided next week.

And so this week on The Religion Report, we're asking whether Australian children have a right to an ordinary Australian childhood, or whether freedom of religion trumps everything else.

Alistair Nicholson is former Chief Justice of the Family Court. I asked him about the problems he'd faced, dealing with the Exclusive Brethren in the court.

Alistair Nicholson: Well I think that any fundamentalist religious group in a Family Law context does provide a headache, because on the one hand you've got legislation which is designed to cover all Australians, which is essentially secular; there's no established religion or anything in Australia, and indeed the constitution forbids it. So you've got that on the one hand, and then you've got people who genuinely believe in fundamentalist faiths that they find difficult to reconcile with a broad secular concept.

Stephen Crittenden: Did you ever have any reason to take action against the Exclusive Brethren?

Alistair Nicholson: No, not as such. I met with delegations on a couple of occasions. Basically they claimed that they were being unfairly treated in the courts; I pointed out to them they were not, that they were being treated in accordance with the law, and that's the only way the court could operate. I think they felt that they should get some special consideration, but it's one of the problems you have with any faith, is that if you started giving preference or consideration to one, what about the other, and what happens when the parties follow different faiths, and so on. But anyhow, I pointed out to them that they were being treated no differently to anyone else in Australia.

Stephen Crittenden: Is it possible that the Family Court is not approaching custody and access cases involving the Exclusive Brethren with enough steel in its belly? Perhaps not even with a clear enough sense of who and what it's dealing with? You know the court refused in this case to make a ruling that the father wanted it to make a ruling, that the Exclusive Brethren was a dangerous cult.

Alistair Nicholson: Yes well I think it would be very dangerous for courts to start making those sorts of rulings, because the reality is that we do have religious freedom in this country, and once courts started singling out particular religious faiths as in general having some offensive characteristic, I think one could start worrying very much about freedom of religion, because courts could no doubt, depending on the whim of the court concerned, take the same view about other religions. I think there's great danger in that.

Stephen Crittenden: Is there an absolute freedom to religion, and is it actually theoretically possible that a religious group could indeed be a dangerous cult that in its behaviour towards its members, and particularly towards the rights of children in the group, is intrinsically abusive?

Alistair Nicholson: Oh, you could get that situation. I mean satanic rituals would be an example of that sort of thing, not that I've encountered them personally, but there have been instances around the world of those sorts of cults. I think it's drawing a bit of a long bow to put the Exclusive Brethren into those sort of categories. It seems to me that the main problem about them is that they have a concept of living really apart from society. But you couldn't say that children brought up in that faith were intrinsically suffering as a result of it, those children may be very happy to be brought up in that faith, they believe nothing else, and so I think it's really pushing it a bit far to say that the cult as such -

Stephen Crittenden: This court ruling last month though did say that when the children were with the father, they were not to have access to television or radio, or even to non-members of the cult. Doesn't that ruling say in effect that those children are being confined, that they're effectively being walled up, not just when they're with the father, but when they're with the mother in ordinary circumstances, and isn't that in fact child abuse?

Alistair Nicholson: Well it's very difficult to - certainly I couldn't arrive at that conclusion simply on the basis of that. I don't know what the evidence was in the case, and I don't know what the circumstances were in that case. But what I can say is that you do have a situation where if those children are normally being brought up by their Exclusive Brethren parent, according to the tenets of the Exclusive Brethren, you get an immediate conflict, because when they go on contact with the non-Exclusive Brethren parent, that parent is going to take presumably if not guided by the court, is going to take a different view. Now I think this is an enormous problem. I mean it's a problem because that could arise just as easily with a cross-faith relationship between Judaism and Christianity, or Islam and Christianity, and what the courts have tended to do is to say "Well the person with whom the children are normally residing, and if they're being brought up in that person's faith, the other person shouldn't in effect teach them another faith. Or go against the tenets of the original faith". Now this is very harsh in relation to children in the Brethren situation, because of the harsh nature of the faith, but I can understand a judge making an order like that, because the alternative orders are pretty limited. One alternative is to remove the child completely from the Exclusive Brethren parent, and that may not be in the interests of the child, that parent may be a very good parent in all other ways, and indeed the other one, the access parent, may not wish to have full custody of the children. So that's a tough one. So if you don't take that step, you've then got the situation where are you going to leave these children in effect torn between their religion in which they're brought up on the one hand, and the views of the other parent on the other, or the views generally of society on the other. I don't think it's that simple.

Stephen Crittenden: Is it perhaps time that we saw legislation maybe introduced into federal parliament to guarantee the rights of children as Australian citizens, to have a normal Australian upbringing? You know, to go to the shops, watch TV, learn to swim with their classmates, have friends down the street, that kind of thing?

Alistair Nicholson: Well arguably what you've got is the fact that the court is bound to make decisions in the bests interests of the child, and in the normal course of events, I suppose, you would look for that as normally being in a child's best interest. But these are very exceptional cases, very unusual cases. I don't think it's as simple, indeed I'm a bit concerned about this sort of modern tendency to superimpose so-called Australian values on anyone, because whether people like it or not, we're a society of many cultures and many backgrounds, and I think it's very worrying that we should start trying to impose some kind of an Australian norm as it were, on anyone.

Stephen Crittenden: It's not all that onerous an Australian norm to expect that a kid would be able to speak to the people over the back fence though.

Alistair Nicholson: Well maybe not, but that's in accordance with what you and I would believe, but these people don't believe that. I've had the experience of living next to Exclusive Brethren parents and children, and I found it somewhat - not unnerving, but an unusual experience that your neighbours would absolutely ignore you and take the children away if they went to speak to them, or you went to speak to them. But it seems to me that that's the way those people want to live, and unless we're going to take the children away from them, I don't think we've got the right to impose on them.

Stephen Crittenden: Just let me give you another example involving another religious group and that is the Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions, but as I understand it, if the child of Jehovah's Witnesses parents needs a blood transfusion, the religious beliefs of the adults will be set aside and the child will get the medical attention it needs.

Alistair Nicholson: Oh certainly, and that's a decision that's taken, and indeed if you like, this is what the judge has done in the case you're speaking about. I mean what the judge has done is to say "Well regardless of the religious belief of the Exclusive Brethren that you as the parent no longer have a right to see the child because you've left the sect," the court is saying "Well, the child has got a right to see this parent and is permitting that." No, the courts can override these things, and the courts can go further. I always have difficulty in commenting on a judicial decision and I think too many of us try and do so, that's where we haven't heard the evidence, so I'm certainly not criticising this judge for what he did. I may not have made that particular decision, but I can understand the dilemma that faces him. There have been plenty of cases where judges have not done that, and they've simply ordered the contact take place in the normal way. Sometimes they've imposed less stringent limitations on it, but you've really got to look at the case as it comes before you.

Stephen Crittenden: Isn't part of the problem that the Family Court has with the Exclusive Brethren, just the simple fact that the Exclusive Brethren don't recognise the validity of the court, of the laws, and that there's just a general sense, a problem of members of the Exclusive Brethren defying court orders?

Alistair Nicholson: Yes, and I think they can be dealt with by the usual method of punishment of people who do defy court orders. There's no problem about that.

Stephen Crittenden: Thank you very much for being on the program, it's been great talking to you.

Alistair Nicholson: OK, it's a pleasure.

Stephen Crittenden: Thank you.

The former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alistair Nicholson.

Well Uniting Church Minister, David Milliken is a former head of the ABC Religion Department and he's probably Australia's leading authority on sects and cults. Does he agree that public interest in the Exclusive Brethren is shifting away from the focus on the group's political activities, and towards its impacts on the rights of children.

David Millikan: Yes I would. Although I think it's always been there simmering in the background, because the Exclusive Brethren have been really pushing this and they have been pushing the courts for quite a while, in many cases refusing to follow orders. There's been a history of them hiding kids and making it extremely difficult for parents that have left the group to keep contact with their kids. It's a very serious matter I think.

Stephen Crittenden: We just heard former Justice Alistair Nicholson suggesting that I was drawing a long bow by suggesting that the Exclusive Brethren might be considered a dangerous cult whose behaviour towards its members is intrinsically abusive. What do you think of that?

David Millikan: I'd be a bit reluctant to make a very broad judgment like that. But what I would say is this: and I've been in this situation myself acting as an expert witness in custody cases over the years. But when you have a fundamentalist group, whether they're Christian or not, who have formed the view that those who step outside their ranks become agents of the devil, and you've got kids involved, that in itself can create the most enormous difficulties. You imagine a five-year-old kid say, who's living with his Mum inside a group, and the Dad has rights on the weekend. That kid, moving from inside the group to his Dad, is being told that his Dad is now acting for the devil, and that his Dad is going to hell. And I've had people in extraordinary distress, wondering how they're going to deal with this. Now that should be the business of the Family Court, they should become involved in it, because the Family Court are there first of all, to protect the rights of the kid. But I've discovered quite often, but not always, and there's some inconsistency about this, that the court is really reluctant to step into those sort of areas, and say "Well the beliefs of the group in fact are relevant."

Stephen Crittenden: Well here in this case, Justice Benjamin refused to make a ruling that the Exclusive Brethren was a dangerous cult, but Justice Benjamin does explicitly say in his judgment that the Brethren had been psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive in the steps it took to prevent the children seeing their estranged father.

David Millikan: The courts don't need to make judgments as to whether or not they're dealing with a cult. The court simply should be in the business of working out whether or not in the particular circumstances, the beliefs that the parents hold within the group are going to work against the wellbeing of the kid. And there were a number of circumstances in which that could occur. I've stated one example, where the group will teach the kid that the person outside is like an agent of Satan. Now under any circumstances that's very, very difficult, and psychologically damaging to the kid, and I say the courts should be involved.

Stephen Crittenden: Are you in favour of a Senate Inquiry? Bob Brown reckons there should be a Senate Inquiry into the role of the Exclusive Brethren in, he says, "undermining the Family Law Act"?

David Millikan: I'd like to see a slightly broader canvas than that. It's not just the Exclusive Brethren that are up to this sort of business, there are various other groups. I was involved in a breakaway group from the Christadelphians for example, some time ago. I was also involved in another Brethren group, who were quite different from the Exclusive Brethren, and they had no connection with them, but it was a sort of breakaway Brethren group that were meeting on a farm outside Bingara, and in that case I was an expert witness on behalf of the mother, who was outside the group. And the courts, when they heard the evidence about what this group was teaching the kids, actually ruled that as part of the custody order, that the children should not be submitted to the teachings of the group, that the leader of the group should be no closer than 500 yards from the kids and so forth.

Stephen Crittenden: Well it sounds like you're saying that the Family Court's rulings in these cases aren't necessarily always consistent.

David Millikan: Well they're not. And it depends very much on who's hearing the case, and it also depends a bit on the barristers involved, because over the years I've found that some barristers will take a very conservative view, a bit like Justice Nicholson, and say it is not the business of the courts to look into the beliefs of the group. But that's entirely the domain of the parents, and they've got to sort of work it out. But that's just putting your head in the sand, because the fact is, it is relevant, and it does go to the wellbeing of the children.

Stephen Crittenden: Just to come back to the Senate Inquiry proposal: what should a Senate Inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren be looking at then?

David Millikan: Look I would like to see an Inquiry that goes broader than the Exclusive Brethren and looks at the role of religious groups in matters that have to do with the Family Court. Because the problem is that the courts don't have the mechanisms to work out what is good religion and what is bad religion.

Stephen Crittenden: In fact is the court too inclined to just take the idea of freedom of religion for granted and basically take the idea that all religion is good religion?

David Millikan: Well that all religion is not their business is what they're saying. But as I say, not all the time. In fact I've noticed over the last 20 years, that there is a greater inclination to look at these matters. I remember when I first became involved in this sort of stuff, maybe 20 years ago, it was impossible, the courts would never listen to evidence that went to the role of the beliefs of the groups. So getting back to the Senate Inquiry, that's what I would like to see, is an Inquiry into what sort of characteristics in any group or in any religious group that may prove to be inimical to the wellbeing of children. And that means we've got to make that decision: what is good religion and what is bad religion?

Stephen Crittenden: Do Australian children have a right to a normal Australian childhood, or are those rights trumped by freedom of religion?

David Millikan: No, no. Freedom of religion doesn't take precedence over the wellbeing of children. Because of this issue, we know, all of us know, that there are certain religions which step out of the bounds of respectability. There are certain general principles we could talk about. For example, a religion that refuses to allow its adherents to write, to question the beliefs; a religion that invades the psychological space of its followers to a point that leaves no person any autonomous place where they can be themselves; a religion that won't allow you to leave without its curses ringing your ears and telling you that if you do, you're going to hell, or you'll die of cancer and so forth. There are certain general principles like this. I think if we had these, I think that courts would be better equipped then, and I think some judges, I think they just feel at sea, and I think many of them don't have knowledge of these things, and I think they're frightened of stepping into areas that they're not familiar with.

Stephen Crittenden: OK, a last question: you were on my colleague, John Cleary's program late on Sunday nights a few weeks ago, and you made a very interesting observation, which I want to get you to repeat to this audience about the Exclusive Brethren, and that is that you think it's inevitable that the Exclusive Brethren will begin to break apart, for theological reasons. Why is that?

David Millikan: I think that they are in a state of serious contradiction, both in terms of the leadership and in terms of their belief. That's one reason why I think pressure is going to come to bear on this.

Stephen Crittenden: In what way?

David Millikan: Well this is a group that has really defined itself in relation to its attitude to the world outside, as one of essential hostility. They're part of that sort of fundamentalist group of Christians who in a sense are at war with their own flesh, and they believe that separation is the key to holiness, and for that reason they over the last 100 years or so have kept away from eating with people, and not having television and not as they say being unequally yoked together with the world outside. Now that has been one of their defining characteristics. Now what we're seeing with this new leadership is a quite dramatic change, and they are now entering into quite sophisticated relationships with the world, not just in terms of their interest in politics, but also in terms of business. They've become a lot more savvy, they are building up their own businesses.

Stephen Crittenden: You're suggesting that in the long run that's sort of psychologically unsustainable?

David Millikan: Well it is because, one, it means that they're now in tension with their entire history, but it also means that the leadership is now in a type of paradoxical relationship with the rest of the group. The leaders are now these sophisticated men of the world, while they're still calling on their followers to maintain this really sort of dour separation.

Stephen Crittenden: How much is that to do with the specific influence of Bruce Hales?

David Millikan: It's got a lot to do with him, and his family. I think it's all to do with him and his family. I would love to know what the theological arguments are within this group. I would just be fascinated. Unfortunately I don't. It would be extraordinarily interesting to know how they are justifying this current shift. This is a group that has known shifts in the past. It was about 20 years ago that there was a call from on top that there be a whisky bottle on every table when elders joined. And that was an astonishing thing to happen. And it turned out that the leader at the time was alcoholic. And they had to sort of deal with that. And that caused ructions. And I know a couple of people that walked out of the group because of that. You see you pay a real price in a groups like this if you make dramatic shifts.

Stephen Crittenden: That's David Millikan.

Guests

Alastair Nicholson
Former Chief Justice of the Family Court

Dr David Millikan
Uniting Church Minister, Cult specialist

Five burly security men yesterday guarded the Exclusive Brethren's headquarters as hundreds of followers poured into North Canterbury to meet their world leader, Bruce Hales.

Amid tight security, Hales met the faithful at the sect's Newnham Street headquarters in Rangiora.

At least 10 buses were parked inside the property, alongside many cars. Cars also lined the footpath outside the wrought-iron gates where the security guards, from a private firm, patrolled and kept the media at bay as followers from around the South Island gathered.

Sect members declined to speak to The Press as they left on foot to homes nearby for a break at noon.

Hales is on a whistle-stop tour of New Zealand, meeting members who know him as the Elect Vessel and the Man of God.

The Sydney businessman spent two days in the North Canterbury town before being whisked away in a car late yesterday morning for a flight to Auckland. He has also visited Whangarei, Tauranga, Lower Hutt and Dunedin using a private plane to jet around the country and meet church members and conduct Bible meetings.

Rangiora has long had links with the exclusive sect, and is home to many large extended Brethren families including the Hickmotts, the Larsens, the Dartnalls and the Hows.

Their business interests range from large buildings and engineering concerns to truck accessories, farming and furniture. They own many of the businesses in the industrial site of Newnham Street, backing on to the sect's Rangiora headquarters.

The headquarters is protected by high wooden fences and towering security lights.

Ron Hickmott, a Rangiora businessman who owns a venetian blind manufacturing business in Rangiora, was one of the key players in a $1 million anti-Labour and Greens campaign Brethren members ran before the last election.

Extract:

Late last year, I shared a podium at the New South Wales Parliament House with a radical cleric for the first time. That religious leader refused outright to condemn a terrorist organisation responsible for more suicide bombings than any terror outfit on earth. The cleric called on his religious group to take over politics in Australia. He also asked his congregation to pray for the houses of worship of other faiths to be pulled down.

But far from being condemned or threatened with prosecution, The Age reported that this cleric and his group are to receive a special video message from the Prime Minister. When this cleric faced a court hearing over religious vilification, he received a letter of support from the Treasurer.

The Herald Sun reported that acting Attorney-General Kevin Andrews expressed concern "about a pattern of behaviour among outspoken Islamic leaders". Perhaps he should also be concerned about a pattern of support his colleagues are showing to fringe Christian extremists. He might also ask the Prime Minister about the growing influence of Christian extremism in the membership of the NSW branch of the Liberal Party.

Further, when politicians go on the attack against extremism and non-integration, they should be consistent. The Prime Minister cannot condemn Muslim non-integration while remaining silent on religious congregations (such as the Exclusive Brethren) accused of actively undermining court orders and covering up allegations of sexual assault on minors.

Picture this if you can. A very broke but very kind and giving bro arrives at the pearly gates after a life of sharing laughter and love with his family, whanau, hapu and wider community.

All he has at the gates to heaven is what he is standing in. He has no gold card, no silver lining in his or his church's pockets and no bronze statues to himself.

But he has a happy heart and a warm soul that is welcomed home because all this Bro ever wanted from his life on Earth was to obey God's command to be like Jesus.

He sees the sparkling eyes and open arms of his saviour and they embrace.

``Welcome home Bro,'' says Jesus warmly to his mate and he shows the Bro around his amazing new whare with wall to wall everything including Sky TV and a lawn mower you don't have to pull-start with a bit of baling twine.

The Bro is really happy and goes about his business setting up shop for the arrival of his whanau after they too have lived a life of sharing and caring for others.

"Sweet as" the Bro thinks to himself as he reflects back to his life on Earth, "I knew I didn't need anything flash to find my way here."

Next to arrive was the publicity shy and very rarely photographed Elect Vessel of the Exclusive Bean Counters Brotherhood, otherwise known as the Exclusive Brethren. Some of his whanau know him as The Man himself while others know the only difference between the Elect Vessel and God is God doesn't believe he is the Elect Vessel.

When the very broke but very giving Bro sees the Elect Vessel arrive at the pearly gates he yells out, "How did you get here bro?" To which he mumbles, "Not the same way as you and your mate Jesus."

The point of this little yarn is if you want to show up in a Citation or any other sort of private jet at Tauranga Airport, as Mr Bruce Hales the Chief Bean Counter for the Exclusive Brethren Church did recently, to audit his bean-counting brethren, and you try to fly under the religious radar, there will always be a price to pay.

I am not talking airport tax or six-figure fees for your personal bodyguard Mr Charlie Taylor, who used to look after Helen Clark in a previous policeman's uniform. And I am not talking tithes to the Tamaki Bishop or any other bishop for that matter.

I am talking about an eternal audit where the taxman is the main man himself who looks inside the worn-out wallet of the caring and sharing like he did with the Bro in my little yarn and welcomed him home. For my two bobs' worth, Christianity begins and ends on the commandment, "to be like Jesus", end of story, straight to bed.

Another exclusive tax or tithe I want to have a bob each way on, also involving loaves and fishes, well a feed of fish anyway, is the exclusive licence granted to the vessel Kotuku in Tauranga Harbour.

How is it this white bird of a boat (kotuku) gets to flog all the fish out of our moana under the protected umbrella of a fisheries licence for long-lining?

Surely there is sense in sending this Kotuku waka outside the entrance like all the other kai moana waka that make a living from the kete (basket) of Tangaroa, and save all the snapper for the fair fishermen who are trying to catch a feed for their whanau.

If it is the cost of the licence the fishery fullas are worried about being out of pocket from, then let's run a raffle to pay for it.

The prize could be a feed of fish!

Just like all of the other mollusc and mullet on the menu of our moana, you have more chance of finding puha in Papamoa than you have of finding a feed of flounder on the mud flats of Matua.

Mind you, there are a few local lads and family whanau who know the real deal and good oil on where to look for fish, but getting them to talk is like a tortured terrorist telling you what you want to hear to keep you as far away as possible from the truth.

And this week truth has come in many masquerades.

Be it bent Barney Rubble in his fanatical Fiji or Madman Mugabe in his fast fading dictatorial Zimbabwe.

Be it bean counters in big jets or long liners in little boats, there seems to be a lot of it about lately.

Where does it all come from, I ask myself, and where is it taking us here on this journey called life? The only answer I can find is greed.

I wonder what my mate up there with the Sky TV and flash new motor mower reckons?

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.

While National Party leader John Key further distances his party from the Exclusive Brethren, the controversial sect has been hosting a rare visit from its world leader.

Publicity-shy Bruce Hales, known to his followers as the Elect Vessel, is using a private plane to jet around the country to hold meetings.

The Sunday Star-Times snapped Hales' entourage as it arrived in Napier last weekend.

Sydney-based Hales is reported to have visited Whangarei, Lower Hutt and Dunedin.

Meanwhile, Key said the party would have "no links" with the Exclusive Brethren, but said it would be "quite wrong" for MPs to inquire into the religious backgrounds of constituents.

His comment on the sect comes after a furious Bill English attacked the Star-Times for reporting his meeting with three Exclusive Brethren men last week.

Links with the Brethren have been a continuing embarrassment for the party since they were revealed to be behind a $1 million anti-Labour and Greens campaign before the last election.

English said he did not know his constituent visitors were Exclusive Brethren until informed by the Star-Times' reporter, and told parliament last week they had come to see him about "a completely normal constituency matter".

He was outside his Clutha/ Southland electorate at the time, holding a constituency clinic at Invercargill MP Eric Roy's office.

English, who did not return a call from the Star-Times yesterday, told the House: "I explained to the Sunday Star-Times that I do not screen constituents on the basis of their religious affiliation - in this case, I had no idea what their religious affiliation was -and what is more, I do not intend to."

Labour Party president Mike Williams said the party did not filter by religious affiliation, but if a Brethren member visited it was up to the individual MP to deal with the situation.

However, Williams said the Brethren would never visit a Labour MP "because they hate us".

National's former leader, Don Brash, was humiliated for his links with the Exclusive Brethren after admitting he knew about the anti-government campaign.

The Brethren were later revealed to have hired private investigators to dig up dirt on senior Labour politicians, including Prime Minister Helen Clark and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen.

Key, who became National's leader in November, told the Star-Times the party intended "having no links at a party level with the Exclusive Brethren. I made that clear upon becoming leader".

He said any "formalised arrangements" such as electioneering, campaigning or fundraising would be banned.

"It is always possible that someone will assist us without our knowledge of their religious backgrounds, but there's a clear direction from the party that we don't have any links," he said.

An Exclusive Brethren Church conference in Tauranga is being held amid tight security and has attracted members, including the world leader, from around the globe.

When the Bay of Plenty Times went to the Bethlehem Rd conference location yesterday we were stopped at the end of a long drive by at least six Brethren members - some of whom carried Bibles - and told we could not enter.

A security guard who had been patrolling the road had alerted his colleagues to our presence when we arrived yesterday morning.

As we approached on foot, church members spread across the drive.

We were able to see a marquee at the end of the drive leading to the Exclusive Brethren Church building, the front of which appeared to be covered with dark material and it was not possible to see inside.

We were given brief details of the conference by one member of the secretive church who said he lived in the Western Bay.

The man said it was an invite-only conference and that people had travelled to it from as far as Europe as well as from across Australia and New Zealand.

It was not revealed how long the conference will last or how many people were attending.

The conversation was halted when a man in a car sped up and said that no further comment would be made.

A female passenger was wearing a headscarf - a distinctive garment of the church.

The Bay Times revealed yesterday that some of the church members arrived on Thursday on a chartered 113-passenger Skylink-owned Boeing 737-200 that landed at Tauranga Airport. Others arrived in Tauranga aboard smaller aircraft, while at 6pm on Thursday a chartered Cessna Citation executive jet landed.

The Exclusive Brethren became embroiled in controversy at the last election when it staged a $500,000 campaign attacking Labour and the Greens.

The movement began in Dublin in the 1820s and split into the Open and Exclusive Brethren in the 1840s.

Exclusive founder John Nelson Darby believed the secular world was corrupt and the way for believers to obey God was to keep to themselves.

There are 40,000 Exclusive Brethren worldwide. Members do not vote.

The world leader of the Exclusive Brethren is touring New Zealand on a private jet, meeting members who know him as the Elect Vessel and the Man of God.

Sydney-based Bruce Hales was in Tauranga last night and his tour includes meetings at churches and private homes throughout the North Island, including Whangarei, Lower Hutt and Wanganui.

It is believed the publicity-shy Mr Hales is travelling with a personal bodyguard who has previously guarded Prime Minister Helen Clark as a member of the police diplomatic protection squad.

The Weekend Herald understands Mr Hales' protector is former policeman Charlie Tyler, now based in Sydney. A spokesman for the diplomatic protection squad said Mr Tyler resigned from the police about two years ago.

Exclusive Brethren spokesman Tony McCorkell last night confirmed Mr Hales was in New Zealand to meet church members and conduct Bible meetings, "not to lobby Helen Clark or the National Party or anything like that".

"There's certainly no major political activity or anything like that planned, nothing at all."

He would not confirm Mr Hales' travel plans "for security reasons", and was not aware of the Elect Vessel's security arrangements as they related to Mr Tyler.

Mr Hales would be in Tauranga until about Sunday.

The church has been particularly wary of publicity since being exposed for circulating pamphlets before the 2005 general election. It later emerged then-National leader Don Brash knew of the campaign and had met church members.

The flyers attacked Labour and the Greens and the Brethren were accused of hiring private detectives to shadow ministers in an initially covert campaign the Government said cost about $1 million.

Members do not vote but have been involved in political lobbying and making campaign donations in Australia and the United States.

A spokesman for National Party leader John Key said he had made it clear the party wanted nothing to do with the Brethren.

The Brethren's $2.6 million gated complex at Mangere in Manukau City was empty yesterday.

The church in New Zealand has about 10,000 followers and 800 Brethren businesses in 40 centres.

National Party deputy leader and Clutha-Southland MP Bill English has apologised to three Exclusive Brethren members whose visit to his constituency clinic was covered by a newspaper.

A furious English yesterday took issue with repeated taunts by Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen over the MP's admission that he met Exclusive Brethren members who visited him at a constituency clinic in his electorate.

The Sunday Star-Times reported last week that three Exclusive Brethren men had an appointment with English at the National Party office in Invercargill last Wednesday.

The paper said the meeting coincided with fresh revelations that the Brethren were behind anti-Labour pamphlets distributed at Auckland Airport last year.

In a personal explanation to Parliament yesterday, English said the first he had known of the Exclusive Brethren visit was when a journalist he had previously dealt with in Invercargill had informed him that they were sitting in his waiting room.

English said he had explained to the journalist that he did not screen constituents on their religious affiliations and expected that would be the end of the matter.

English said he was staggered the story had become front-page news in a national newspaper four days later.

"I regard it as a fundamental right of New Zealand citizens to attend a constituency clinic without being hounded by the media."

He said he apologised to the Brethren members who had made an appointment to see him on constituency matters in good faith but had found themselves on the front page of a newspaper.

Their trust in the political process had been destroyed.

English said he had also dealt with people subject to claims of child abuse, rapists, and people who believed themselves to be under government surveillance.

"But clearly some media and the Labour Party believe some constituents should not be able to talk to their member of Parliament.

"I want to assure all my 55,000 constituents that they are free to come to my office if they ring up and make an appointment."

National Party leader John Key has drawn a line between constituency meetings with the Brethren and meetings on a party level.

National had previously said it did not want links with the Exclusive Brethren.

A Charles Sturt University (CSU) academic has raised concerns a religious group that does not allow its followers to vote is getting involved in the New South Wales state election.

The Christian group, the Exclusive Brethren, has previously been linked to advertising campaigns supporting the Liberal Party in both state and federal elections.

A history and politics lecturer at CSU, Dr Troy Whitford, says the Brethren were heavily involved in the Victorian election, meeting with incumbents and candidates.

"I'd imagine the same thing would be happening in NSW right now," he said.

"There's a wider opinion, particularly globally, that it's not correct that this group should be buying their way into politics and yet not voting.

"So I think that perhaps politicians will need to start to be a bit smarter about who they're dealing with and who they're getting their money from because I think the public are starting to wake up to it in a big way."

"We do not mix in politics; we are not of the world; we do not vote," stated John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Brethren Church. The practice of vote abstinence continues, but the Brethren are mixing in politics, becoming God's lobbyists and significant political campaign funders.

The lobbying and campaign contributions of the Exclusive Brethren have generated considerable interest in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Accusations of smear campaigns conducted by the Brethren dominated the last New Zealand election. Similar accusations were made by the Greens after the recent Tasmanian election. There have been questions about the Brethren's financial contributions to both Liberal and Nationals candidates in the 2004 federal election, with contributions estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Allegations have also been made about establishing companies to funnel money to political parties without the Brethren identified as the donors.

But this funding is not a new form of Christian charity. The Brethren, like any other lobbyists, are buying access to politicians and influencing policy. The Brethren have approached state and federal incumbents and candidates to promote their conservative brand of Christianity. Their platform is anti-homosexuality, anti-single-parent families and anti-interventionist government. They have reportedly made gains in industrial relations laws, being able to exclude union officials from members' businesses without consulting staff. The Brethren also receive substantial funding for their schools.

Their campaign tactics are organised and targeted. While they claim there is no co-ordination from the church, they seem not only to be able to raise money but also to organise members to conduct extensive mailbox drops.

In the federal electorate of Calare in western NSW in the 2004 election the Brethren supported the National Party candidate and Baptist minister, Robert Griffith. Members of the Brethren showed Griffith drafts of a pamphlet they intended to deliver to households promoting him. However, when the Brethren's support became known, Griffith was heavily criticised by media and his opponents. Voters in Calare seemed to prefer a separation of church and state, and in hindsight the Brethren's involvement probably did Griffith more harm than good.

But this has not dampened the efforts of the Brethren or politicians. In both the NSW and federal elections we will hear of more campaign contributions and Brethren-supported candidates.

But the Brethren's contributions carry a commandment: funds cannot be used for television or radio advertising, a condition that stems from their principle of separation, which was established to keep worldly practices from "defiling" members. Such worldly practices include watching television, listening to radio, owning a computer or eating with anyone not a member of the Brethren. Yet it seems odd for people so wary of the corrupting influences of the secular world to not only involve themselves in politics, but also make their campaign contributions through a third party. This borders on hypocrisy considering the Brethren's refusal to vote.

This refusal is based on the notion of ordained rule, which stems from biblical passages such as Romans 13:1, "… the powers that be are ordained of God". Since it is God who ordains our rulers, they argue, a member could unknowingly vote against God's chosen party.

Why is voting an act against God, yet lobbying is not? One possible reply is that although the Brethren may not know who God wishes to install as ruler, they have a good idea who God does not want in power. If God is against homosexual marriage, it would be reasonable to suggest God would not want the Greens in power since they are for homosexual marriage. Such a rationale might explain why the Brethren find it acceptable to lobby against the Greens, but not vote for another party.

If God does install governments, why did Canada legalise such marriages?

The question that should be posed to the Exclusive Brethren is why God favours backroom deals to the voting booth. If they cannot provide a suitable explanation then perhaps the Australian Electoral Commission should reconsider the validity of the Brethren's objection to voting.

Dr Morgan Luck and Dr Troy Whitford lecture in the school of humanities and social sciences at Charles Sturt University.

National party deputy leader Bill English met with members of the Exclusive Brethren last week and says he will continue to do so despite his party's attempt to distance itself from the church.

The Sunday Star-Times can reveal three Exclusive Brethren men had an appointment with English, the Clutha/Southland MP, at the National Party office in Invercargill on Wednesday.

The meeting coincided with fresh revelations that Exclusive Brethren were behind anti-Labour pamphlets distributed at Auckland airport last year, accusing the government of leaving New Zealand open to a terrorist attack.

Exclusive Brethren members have also said they were behind a $1m campaign using pamphlets and newspaper advertisements to discredit the Green and Labour parties prior to the 2005 general election.

English refused to comment on what the men discussed with him but said it was a constituency matter.

"I just treat them like constituents. I don't exclude them from seeing me.

"I hope that anyone can come through my office and get a hearing. I don't have a way of screening them and I'm not going to."

English said he didn't know the trio were Brethren until they arrived for their appointment on Wednesday morning, although he conceded he had seen them before.

"I recognised them from election meetings from the past," he said.

Labour Party president Mike Williams wasn't buying English's explanation. He believed English should be disciplined, saying his dealings with the Brethren were an act of insubordination, given National leader John Key's reported comments and stance against them.

The party's former leader Don Brash resigned during the fallout from Nicky Hagar's book The Hollow Men on the Exclusive Brethren links to National's 2005 election campaign.

After Key took over the party leadership in November he said: "We won't have a bar of the Exclusive Brethren, thanks very much. We can look after ourselves."

But yesterday Key said he supported English.

"I'm not going to ask my MPs to vet their constituents on the basis of religion and I would expect my MPs to provide a service and help to any member of their constituency."

There was a difference between that and the financial support the Exclusive Brethren had offered in the past, he said.

"On a party level, we don't want to hear from them."

Extract:

Mr Hager said he knew Dr Brash would resign once National knew his book was being released and warned journalists of PR spin the party would feed them, including deflection - getting the leader to resign, slamming the author and painting themselves as victims with claims of hacking into computers.

He said he received "absolutely unprecedented" numbers of board and meeting minutes, strategies and emails from six legitimate National Party sources for the content for his book. Because of that, a police investigation into how he obtained the documents would prove fruitless.

As for the Exclusive Brethren's financial backing, Mr Hager said his documents proved some National Party members knew of it six months before the election.

The Exclusive Brethren has again been linked to an anti-Labour pamphlet campaign.

The anonymous leaflets were distributed at Auckland Airport last year and accused the Government of leaving New Zealand open to a terrorist attack.

The Exclusive Brethren caused a furore during the last election, when it revealed they were behind leaflets attacking the Government and the Greens.

The latest pamphlets have been traced back to a Wellington Brethren Church member - and church spokesman Tony McCorkell says he has been told to stop.

Despite vowing to stay out of politics, the Exclusive Brethren have been linked to anti-government leaflets similar to the ones that landed them in hot water at the last election.

The latest leaflets describe New Zealand as Helengrad and Prime Minister Helen Clark is accused of leaving the country "dangerously exposed to a terrorist attack" after axing the Skyhawk fighter jets.

The pamphlets also say the nuclear ships ban is ridiculous and call for closer relations with America and tax cuts for all workers.

"We do adhere to freedom of speech in our country. But you have a lot more respect for people if they have the guts to put their names to things. They can't put their name to it I suppose because they know they have absolute untruths in it," Clark says.

ONE News has been told the leaflets were produced by Dynamic Consulting, a group of "concerned New Zealanders who don't want the country to be over-run by people with hidden agendas".

Dynamic Consulting is an unlisted business but ONE News has traced it back to a Wellington Brethren church member, Richard McClean. He would not talk but the church's official spokesman has confirmed that a Brethren member was behind the pamphlets.

"The person involved was a member of the church. It had nothing to do with the church itself," says Tony McCorkell.

The Australian-based spokesman says the leaflet campaign has been stopped because of concerns the church would again be embroiled in a political row.

Seven Exclusive Brethren businessmen were exposed for funding a million dollar anti-government pamphlet drop at the last election.

"Given the criticism the church was receiving collectively for the actions of some of its members over in New Zealand...one of the friends or contacts of the gentlemen distributing those leaflets thought it was probably more wise at this point not to do so," McCorkell says.

And similar flyers could be on the way.

ONE News understands some church members have been instructed to prepare a war-chest to fight next year's election.

But that could prove difficult with Labour planning to change the law to limit anonymous donations and third party election advertising.

Extract:

Twelve months after he narrowly failed to oust Labor at the 2005 election, National Party leader Don Brash was forced to resign over revelations that he had lied about his connections with the Christian fundamentalist Exclusive Brethren religious sect. His replacement, John Key, led National’s election strategy on tax cuts and was virtually pre-selected as Brash’s replacement by the media. He is a political novice with a background as a “self-made” multi-millionaire and currency trader—credentials deemed eminently suitable to prepare him to carry forward the pro-market agenda.

Extract:

ASIO and the bomb squad were called in to investigate a series of death threats and a "suspicious incident" outside Ms McKew's home.

A full search of her car by the bomb squad and sniffer dogs turned up nothing.

Former intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie, who was the Greens candidate for the same seat in 2004, revealed he too had been threatened during the last federal election campaign.

It was suggested at the time that cult religious sect Exclusive Brethren were campaigning against the former defence intelligence official using "bullying" tactics to dissuade him from his campaign.

Ms McKew said she would not be deterred by the events, but hinted there had been other incidents which had unsettled her.

Extract:

"THE mobile telephone in its current form is a tool of the devil, it's an instrument of hell," rants Exclusive Brethren leader Bruce D. Hales. So it came as a great surprise to Diary that two of his loyal subjects indeed possess such diabolical instruments.

Warwick John and David Stewart wrote to federal MPs and senators to "improve understanding" of the cult and invited them to get in touch … on their MOBILES (we can pass on the numbers).

Another great mystery of planet Brethren is that Warwick and Dave are banned from reading evil newspapers but want to counter "misleading media reports" about their 13,000 members. Sorry to break it to you, Bruce, but the devil is flat out dialling and reading.