We have been sent a copy of the Jackson-Wells spin-doctors’ media release. It is a remarkable document that offers an in-depth and wide-ranging rebuttal. There is only one problem, they have yet to read Michael Bachelard’s new book - ‘Behind The Exclusive Brethren’.

Is it fair to suggest that by waiting 24 hours or so they might have gained a little more respect? What an extraordinary error!

We reproduce the media release in full:

—– Original Message —–
From: Ben Haslem (bhaslem@jacksonwells.com.au)
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 12:32 AM
Subject: Exclusive Brethren Media Release

Please find attached and following a media release from the Exclusive Brethren Church.

Media release – September 22, 2008

New book ‘a transcending work of fiction’: Brethren

A book about the Exclusive Brethren Church to be launched tomorrow is likely to be “a transcending work of fiction”, according to the Church.

“Articles previously written by journalist Michael Bachelard about the Church over the last two years, and extracts from his book published at the weekend, show both an ignorance of our beliefs and practices and an unwillingness to assure factual integrity,” says senior Church leader, Daniel Hales.

”We find many of the assertions Mr Bachelard makes to be extraordinary. For example, he made a comprehensive visit to our MET Meadowbank School last year, yet makes statements about our education system that he must know are wrong.

“He has been using the columns of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald to promote what seems certain to be a far-fetched and lurid book on the Church,” Mr Hales said.

“Over recent weeks, Mr Bachelard has also taken to the radio airwaves to leverage sales of the book by offering mythology and gossip that he represents as a true account.

“in other respects, the book ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’ should probably be entitled ‘Behind the Times’.”

Mr Hales said the Church had analysed 14 articles about the Brethren that Mr Bachelard had written for The Age over the last two years.

“We found 60 egregious and many less serious errors of fact or misrepresentations about the Church in those articles,” he said.

“Potential readers should understand that, on this track record, Mr Bachelard’s book is more likely to be a work of imagination than a factual account of the beliefs, practices and behaviour of the Church.”

Mr Hales pointed to a number of devices Mr Bachelard uses to portray the Church in a negative light. These include:

Extrapolating from individual actions as if they represent the decisions, policy or activities of the entire Church. “This stereotyping and vilification is probably the most common technique used by Mr Bachelard,” said Mr Hales.

Drawing assertions from gossip not evidence. “Phrases such as ‘don’t let the facts spoil a good story’ and ‘don’t get it right, get it written’ spring to mind,” said Mr Hales.

Using pejorative expressions such as ‘poised to intervene’, ‘won special dispensation’ and ‘receiving the same generous rate of government funding as the nation’s poorest schools’ to describe perfectly normal and routine events.

Repeatedly using expressions like ‘The Elect Vessel’ to refer to the world leader of the Church, Mr Bruce Hales, even though such terms are eschewed by Mr Hales.

Failing to recognise the transformation the Church over recent years, both to reconcile with people who have left and, within its understanding of the Scriptures, to adapt itself to modern life.

Publishing many allegations and imputations that would be disproven by even cursory research and fact checking had Mr Bachelard chosen to do this.

Perpetuating many untruths and misconceptions that could and should have checked in the interests of fairness, honesty and impartiality.

“It seems that Mr Bachelard’s motive is to sensationalise our Church, not to provide an accurate picture of it,” Mr Hales said.

A summary of Michael Bachelard’s factual errors and misrepresentations about the Exclusive Brethren Church in The Age newspaper, and the Church’s responses to these, is available on request. Phone (02) 9904 4333

A book about the Exclusive Brethren Church to be launched tomorrow is likely to be “a transcending work of fiction”, according to the Church.

The words “is likely” are very important - they haven’t even seen the book! It offers a memory of a truly wonderful advertising slogan used many years ago for Guinness - that dark creamy-textured beer that you either love or detest:

“I’ve never tried it because I don’t like it!”

“Articles previously written by journalist Michael Bachelard about the Church over the last two years, and extracts from his book published at the weekend, show both an ignorance of our beliefs and practices and an unwillingness to assure factual integrity,” says senior Church leader, Daniel Hales.

Danny Hales would do well to remember that Michael did not make the news! Michael did not design and print political smear campaigns. Michael has not been responsible for ripping families apart.

“He has been using the columns of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald to promote what seems certain to be a far-fetched and lurid book on the Church,” Mr Hales said.

Awesome use of adjectives for a book that has not been seen as yet! Michael must be pleased with this free advertising across all media outlets - after all, ‘far-fetched’ and ‘lurid’ are the stuff of tabloids - and boy do they sell!

In fact, Michael Bachelard is a well-respected and professional journalist. He researches carefully and has helped lift the lid off a group that has been accurately described as an “extremist sect and cult” by no less than the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

“Over recent weeks, Mr Bachelard has also taken to the radio airwaves to leverage sales of the book by offering mythology and gossip that he represents as a true account.

How does Danny know this? In the Exclusive Brethren cult, listening to radios is banned!

“in other respects, the book ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’ should probably be entitled ‘Behind the Times’.”

And all this without even having read it!

Mr Hales said the Church had analysed 14 articles about the Brethren that Mr Bachelard had written for The Age over the last two years.

“We found 60 egregious and many less serious errors of fact or misrepresentations about the Church in those articles,” he said.

“Potential readers should understand that, on this track record, Mr Bachelard’s book is more likely to be a work of imagination than a factual account of the beliefs, practices and behaviour of the Church.”

This is pure Exclusive Brethren! We would love to see the list they have worked so hard to create!

Extrapolating from individual actions as if they represent the decisions, policy or activities of the entire Church. “This stereotyping and vilification is probably the most common technique used by Mr Bachelard,” said Mr Hales.

The Exclusive Brethren are run from the top. Danny Hales’s brother Bruce is the Universal Lead, the Man of God, the Elect Vessel, the Minister of the Lord in the Recovery. When ‘Mr. Bruce’ says “Jump!” an Exclusive Brethren member has no option but to ask humbly “How high?”.

Repeatedly using expressions like ‘The Elect Vessel’ to refer to the world leader of the Church, Mr Bruce Hales, even though such terms are eschewed by Mr Hales.

But Bruce Hales doesn’t “eschew” including the term in thousands of Meeting Room, ‘Poverty’ and School Trusts in all Exclusive Brethren territories.

We can hardly wait for the apoplectic and adjective-churning response due within the next 48 hours! We don’t know how many copies have been produced in the first printing, but it will quite possibly need to be in excess of 43,000 - the contents of the book may well be the first time that 99% of Exclusive Brethren members have read of how the Assembly is run.

Go Michael! Thank you for your courage and professionalism.

It all started with a surprisingly (one could say comradely, friendly, even nauseously) gentle article in yesterday’s The Australian that shone a whole new shade of pink over the Topic du Jour - the Exclusive Brethren and their outright panic over the about-to-be-launched ‘Behind The Exclusive Brethren’ by investigative journalist, Michael Bachelard.

For those with a strong stomach, we present:

Brethren lift veil on their exclusive lifestyle
The Australian
Brad Norington
September 20, 2008

Daniel Hales says talking to his neighbours would help dispel negative perceptions about the Exclusive Brethren straight away.

“If you went up and down our street,” Hales says, “they would say, ‘oh yeah, they’ve got some funny beliefs, but gee, they’re nice people, they’re good people’.”

From the modest comfort of his home in Epping, a quiet, conservative, leafy suburb in Sydney’s north, a senior elder from a very private fundamentalist Christian sect has taken an extraordinary step.

Despite the Brethren doctrine of separation from the outside world, Hales has granted access to The Weekend Australian. In public relations terms, it’s called damage control.

The Brethren, which has 15,000 members in Australia and 43,000 worldwide, has even engaged a well-connected public relations firm, Jackson Wells Morris, to provide advice as it battles public vilification after a torrent of allegations about cruelty to members and undue political influence.

For the past two years, the Brethren has been savaged by stories of families torn apart after members who left or were “ex-communicated” were prevented from seeing wives, husbands, children or parents.

During the federal election campaign, Kevin Rudd branded the Brethren “an extremist cult” that broke up families.

The group’s reputation has been sullied further by claims it has spent hundreds of thousands of election campaign dollars backing conservative candidates and attacking the Greens — without proper disclosure — even though Brethren members do not vote. The Brethren shuns political involvement as part of its Bible-based charter to “withdraw from iniquity”.

Another charge that feeds resentment against the Brethren is that it receives government grants for its special schools that are out of proportion to the small number of students who attend.

According to Hales, the assault on his sect will culminate next week with the publication of Behind the Exclusive Brethren, a book by journalist Michael Bachelard that explores the Australian offshoot of the church started almost 200 years ago by Irishman John Nelson Darby.

Hales, brother of the sect’s world leader Bruce Hales and owner of a family-run shop-fitting business in Sydney, says many lies are told about the Brethren. He claims the vilification has become so bad it is “open season to kill us”.

He blames most allegations made against the Brethren on a small number of “sad” disaffected people.

Two years ago Hales hired Jackson Wells Morris, after a recommendation that he talk to its plain-speaking media guru Keith Jackson. The PR firm is best known for its Liberal links, chiefly through former company partner and John Howard chief of staff Grahame Morris.

“We’re happy to live our lives in anonymity, just quietly in our neighbourhoods in our low-key way,” Hales says.

“We’re quite happy to have our beliefs questioned, ethically debated, and points of religion looked at. That’s not a problem. We don’t mind being criticised. We don’t even mind being despised because of it.

“But once it starts to be charged that we’re acting criminally, we’re acting illegally, we’re acting immorally, we’re acting against society, then we felt that we really had to put our point of view. We felt that it wasn’t fair to our members.”

Hales admits that, although the Brethren’s members are scattered among the community, they are not allowed to eat, drink or have friends outside the group.

Members are not permitted to join non-Brethren clubs nor attend popular sporting events. They drive cars and use telephones, but do not have televisions or radios.

Hales learns about the outside world by reading newspapers. Occasionally he is handed videotaped copies of news programs attacking the Brethren.

Computers, Hales says, are permitted for Brethren businesses, but adapted with special filters to deny internet access.

Children go to Brethren schools. They are not permitted a university education afterwards, which excludes them from careers such as medicine, the law and teaching.

Asked why Brethren children could not attend university, Hales says they would inevitably move away if exposed to campus life.

Similarly, all Brethren members are expected to marry within the group. Hales dismisses as lies that the sect endorses arranged or forced marriages, but says those who marry outside leave. Asked why, he says: “They would find it wouldn’t work.”

Hales dismisses claims that women are treated as inferior, citing their role in carrying the chalice of wine during Sunday services at the Brethren’s small windowless churches.

Bachelard writes in Behind the Exclusive Brethren that wives are always treated as second-class citizens and women progress no further than reception or administration jobs at Brethren businesses.

Hales denies Brethren members are brutally cut off from family if they leave the group, but he does admit they remain outside.

According to Hales, the Brethren has been vindicated over allegations of forced family separations, after suspended jail sentences given to three members by a judge last year for denying a father access to his children later overturned on appeal.

He says the Brethren has been cleared over alleged breaches of federal election funding laws after a police investigation found no wrongdoing.

The Australian - Brethren lift veil on their exclusive lifestyle

In there are all the standard Exclusive Brethren components of course, but it’s so … ‘bought’!

The key comes when you link Brad and Ben.

Benjamin Haslem, a Jackson Wells Director no less, came to the latest Exclusive Brethren spin-doctors from … you guessed it … The Australian! He has a degree in politics and psychology and has even cultivated that ‘EB look’ quite nicely.

Jackson Wells have very close links to John Howard. Their two Special Counsels Kerry Sibraa and Michael Baume have had impressive careers in the company of the ex-Premier.
Of course, Johnny Howard was also very close friends with Danny’s brother Brucie who tried to help out Johnny with some of the $2.2 Billion income that Bruce claims the Exclusive Brethren offer to the Australian GNP. (See ‘Living Our Beliefs’)

Now we see the cozy connections that Jackson-Wells offer, it is a good time to avoid the lipstick, and look at what Danny was purported to have said in the extended Press Release that was published in The Australian:

“If you went up and down our street,” Hales says, “they would say, ‘oh yeah, they’ve got some funny beliefs, but gee, they’re nice people, they’re good people’.”

You know Danny … you probably have a point. Let’s just leave out the sexual abuse, the lies, the tax-evasion, the ripping apart of families, the ignoring of court orders, the turning of children against parents, the lack of notifications of death, the treatment of relatives at funerals. Apart from these (and it is most certainly not a complete list), we would agree that the vast majority of the 43,000 Exclusive Brethren fit the category - “they’re nice people, they’re good people’.”. You see, some of them are our families we have not seen for years.

Despite the Brethren doctrine of separation from the outside world, Hales has granted access to The Weekend Australian. In public relations terms, it’s called damage control.

Ah - OK. At least the spin-doctor script writers are being honest!

The Brethren shuns political involvement as part of its Bible-based charter to “withdraw from iniquity”.

Shuns? But what about all the political smear campaigns that Bruce Hales ordered? The ‘forgetting’ to place correct names and addresses, the world-wide dictate to “give generously” to the Bruce Hales-initiated political campaigns? That is hardly ’shunning’.

If political involvement is so ‘iniquitous’, why did ‘Elect Vessel’ Bruce Hales even want to get involved? Isn’t that wrong? And what happens to bad people in the Brethren Danny? Their bodies metaphorically litter the hedgerows …

According to Hales, the assault on his sect will culminate next week with the publication of Behind the Exclusive Brethren, a book by journalist Michael Bachelard that explores the Australian offshoot of the church started almost 200 years ago by Irishman John Nelson Darby.”

This is a little muddled of course. John Nelson Darby was an early member of the Plymouth Brethren (not the founder) and forced a division between the evangelical ‘Open’ Plymouth Brethren and those that he persuaded to follow him. Those that made the decision in 1848 to follow Darby were known in the press at that time as ‘Darbyites’ and/or ‘Closed’ or ‘Exclusive’ Brethren.

The remaining and far larger ‘Open’ Plymouth Brethren maintained the original intent of the movement and met quietly in local Gospel Halls with no established leadership or confederation. By contrast, it only took the Exclusive Brethren 100 years to start the ‘Banning’ and the ‘Dictates’. By the 1960’s, the Exclusive Brethren were a fully-fledged cult.

But the ‘assault’ that Danny refers to, will absolutely not culminate next week! It has only just begun!

Hales, brother of the sect’s world leader Bruce Hales and owner of a family-run shop-fitting business in Sydney, says many lies are told about the Brethren. He claims the vilification has become so bad it is “open season to kill us”.

This is quite extraordinary! “Open season to kill us”? Where does Danny get that from? Who mentioned “killing”? The Exclusive Brethren are known to pray for the deaths of those who oppose them, but is Danny really suggesting that there are Hit Squads out there gunning for him?

Such planting of conspiracy theories are of course well known in cultic philosophy - remember the fake war in ‘1984′? Or the monsters in ‘The Village’. The use of the bogeyman is a classic control technique used by parents since the dawn of time … and as brother to the ‘Elect Vessel’, Danny certainly has unique status - something that the partners of Jackson-Wells should be congratulated for massaging into focus. It certainly was time to move away from the Tony McCorkell era.

It is worth mentioning that the “shop-fitting business” is an international office furniture manufacturing, distribution and installation business called Archway, with its headquarters in Sydney. It is deeply embedded in the business fabric of the Exclusive Brethren. The last we heard, Tony McCorkell was now selling office tables for the Hales family.

He blames most allegations made against the Brethren on a small number of “sad” disaffected people.

He can’t mean us! No - we’re not sad. But he does have to blame someone - the Exclusive Brethren could never be the cause of their own problems, right?

“We’re quite happy to have our beliefs questioned, ethically debated, and points of religion looked at. That’s not a problem. We don’t mind being criticised. We don’t even mind being despised because of it.”

Excuse me? That’s wonderful Danny! We’ll be passing that particular quote to our lawyers post-haste. The Exclusive Brethren love debate so much that they have already closed down two web sites that dared to criticise them and are hard at work closing down this site! (For some details on the legal battles - February 2008 Press Release and Background Information)

We shall also ensure that if attacked in the future, we’ll quote you word for word! Does this also mean that you’ll stop calling all Peebs.Net members ‘Opposers’ and will start allowing them to see their families again?

It appears that Jackson-Wells are going to use the martyrdom-angle to the full. A clever move, except it is really important to ensure that the martyr label is placed on the right donor. If there is not complete purity and saint-like sacrificial properties, it simply will not stick.

“But once it starts to be charged that we’re acting criminally, we’re acting illegally, we’re acting immorally, we’re acting against society, then we felt that we really had to put our point of view. We felt that it wasn’t fair to our members.”

Danny - you’re missing something. Your members are not the issue. It’s the hierarchy - it’s the dynasty. It’s the interchange, regional and country henchmen who deserve the investigations. The members simply suffer under you - you’re absolutely right that it isn’t fair on them.

We’re delighted that you don’t mind being criticized. It’s a relief. We have a great deal of criticism that we’ve been saving up for quite a while. Michael’s book in no way is any form of culmination. There are others on the way!

In terms of “criminal” and “illegal” - we believe a full investigation into the dealings of the Exclusive Brethren is not only desirable, it is essential. Despite the world-wide network of carefully integrated trusts and for-profit subsidiaries, there is one powerful legal adage that will bring the Truth out - ‘Follow The Money’.

But “immoral”? That was an error. The Exclusive Brethren are guilty as charged. Ripped apart families … suicide victims … men driven to murder … psychological damage … sexual abuse … child molestation …

Hales admits that, although the Brethren’s members are scattered among the community, they are not allowed to eat, drink or have friends outside the group.

Ben, Brad and Danny messed that up a little - the Exclusive Brethren certainly eat and oh man do they drink! But what they were trying to say was - not with anyone else outside the Exclusive Brethren. If they did and were caught, they would be shunned, possibly excommunicated and then the family ripping would begin …

Members are not permitted to join non-Brethren clubs nor attend popular sporting events. They drive cars and use telephones, but do not have televisions or radios.

Hales learns about the outside world by reading newspapers. Occasionally he is handed videotaped copies of news programs attacking the Brethren.

Um … we don’t want to be too picky, but how does he watch the video tape then? By holding it up to the light?

“Computers, Hales says, are permitted for Brethren businesses, but adapted with special filters to deny internet access.”

Actually Ben, Brad and Danny - that’s not exactly true. The Wordex PC that the Exclusive Brethren force their members to purchase (it’s a ‘purer’ computer you understand) allows you to access the internet - and the more you pay the controlling EB organization, the less the sites are filtered. It’s ‘Nanny’ Software with a ‘Danny’ price structure.

Asked why Brethren children could not attend university, Hales says they would inevitably move away if exposed to campus life.

NO KIDDING! And why on earth would that be? Could it be that they might decide to get a life? Just what on earth is he so afraid of?

The answer is the key to the entire matter - the Exclusive Brethren are a cult. The only way they can keep their young is to clone them very carefully and indoctrinate them against leaving. If you study the document ‘Living Our Beliefs’ (link above) purportedly by Bruce Hales, you will see that it is stated clearly that the Exclusive Brethren do not actively recruit new members. This is hardly surprising of course, but this conversely means that their growth is all from within.

It is a disgrace that the Exclusive Brethren schools are subsidized by tax payers. They school their young for one reason - to instill the components of control and to remove any desire for further education. To be born a member of the Exclusive Brethren is to be born with an immediate handicap - you will be trimmed and cultivated to become an obedient addition to the workforce … a world-wide network of businesses and trade routes from which huge tithes and profits are extracted on a regular basis.

Hales dismisses claims that women are treated as inferior, citing their role in carrying the chalice of wine during Sunday services at the Brethren’s small windowless churches.

Wow! That sounds like something to really look forward to. Who are they carrying the ‘chalice’ for? The men?

Hales denies Brethren members are brutally cut off from family if they leave the group, but he does admit they remain outside.

It’s difficult to find words that adequately cater to this ridiculous attempt at whitewash (sorry, lipstick). So is Danny suggesting that it’s alright to separate children from parents (can’t eat, drink, make friends, etc) - and that’s not “brutal”? Perhaps a better word would be evil. At the very least, it is “immoral”.

It would be most interesting to have a chat with Danny’s neighbors sometime. Perhaps there are a couple of things they don’t know.

Meanwhile … we are now aware that Danny doesn’t mind being criticized and also expects those that disagree with the Exclusive Brethren ‘want to kill them’ … why would we want to kill the members of our own families who we have missed for so long? As this site has clearly stated for so long, ‘We love the people, but hate the system’.

And don’t for a single fleeting minute even dream that Michael’s wonderful book, launched this week is any sort of culmination.

Danny Boy - that would be a big mistake:

The summer’s gone, and all the flowers are dying
‘Tis you, ’tis you must go and I must bide.

Brethren expresses regret over sister
The Age
September 22, 2008

An elder of the controversial Exclusive Brethren religious sect says he feels sorry for his 85-year-old sister, who did not see four of her sect children for 20 years after being excommunicated.

But he says animosity to the group has “blinded” his sister, who has described the sect as “grossly evil”.

Sydney man David Stewart said the Exclusive Brethren had apologised for its “harsh” treatment of his sister, Alison Alderton, and her late husband Bob when they were leading figures in the group at Bathurst in central western NSW in the early 1980s.

But she had refused invitations to rejoin the brethren, described last year by Labor leader Kevin Rudd as an “extremist cult” that broke up families.

“I feel sorry for her,” Mr Stewart told AAP.

“I feel sorry for the four (of her six) children still in the fellowship, because their mother has really shafted them, and their sisters, too.

“But the poor lady’s thoughts and mind are blinded by her animosity towards the fellowship.”

The Alderton case has been raised in a new book, Behind The Exclusive Brethren.

Mr Stewart said the case was among a number revisited in 2002 after Sydney man Bruce Hales became leader of the church which has 43,000 members worldwide including 15,000 in Australia.

“Some cases were dealt with rather harshly in a way they certainly wouldn’t be dealt with today,” he said.

“That included my brother-in-law and sister.”

Also harshly treated, he said, was the Alderton’s daughter Sophie, who was excommunicated as a married woman after having an affair with another brethren man.

“That case again would be very differently treated today,” Mr Stewart said.

“I would say that today that wouldn’t become public amongst the brethren.

“It would be dealt with by the elders who would work with her to restore her soul and bring in healing.

“If those circumstances arose again today, I doubt very much they would have been excluded from the church.

“There would have been discussions, pastoral care, an attempt to look at the things they were raising and get the facts on the table and get them to see eye to eye.”

Mr Stewart said the Aldertons spent 20 years denigrating the church “far and wide” but the church still went back and said: “You were wrongly dealt with the first time, we’re sorry for that.”

“I went back and saw her four times, the (four Alderton brethren) children went to see her, but she came out very strongly with her continued attack on the church.”

“We don’t mind that,” said another elder, Daniel Hales.

“We’re not trying to silence her. But we do believe the time has come for the other side of the story to be put.”

Mr Hales said brethren members were not discouraged from maintaining contact with family members outside the fellowship, despite the sect’s “separation” policy.

“We don’t live in communes,” he said.

_____________________________

And there the article ends. In summary:

a) The cult excommunicated Mrs. Alderton

b) The cult admits it was wrong to excommunicate her and rip apart her family

c) Mrs Alderton is angry and missed 4 out of her 6 children desperately

d) Mrs Alderton declines repeated offers to rejoin the cult

e) Daniel Hales tells lies

Members of the Exclusive Brethren were actively attempting to donate to John Howard’s re-election campaign last year in a manner that meant the cash injection would not have been disclosed to the public, according to a new book about the secretive Christian sect.

Fairfax newspapers say a senior Liberal Party source has confirmed in the book, Behind The Exclusive Brethren, that in the weeks leading up to the November election he was approached by a group of Exclusive Brethren men in a Sydney hotel who offered him a large, anonymous financial donation.

“They said ‘We are a private group’. I asked them if they voted. It was a testing question. They said they didn’t. It was a very short discussion,” the source said.

The Exclusive Brethren, whose members are urged not to vote, believe that government is in the hands of God. But for many years they have extensively lobbied politicians. In the 2004 federal election campaign they pumped $370,000 into a pro-Howard and anti-Greens advertising effort without fully disclosing who they were.

“We’re in the business of ideas and so are the Exclusive Brethren,” the Liberal source said. “I regard many of the party’s views and those of the Exclusive Brethren as inconsistent. What the [Liberal] Party stands for should not be confused in the mind of the electorate by the acceptance of donations from fringe groups.”

The source said he turned down the offer.

“In my view, if you accept this money, you’re arguably accepting some of their opinions,” he said.

In fact, by late 2007, according to Liberal pollster Mark Textor, the sect was electorally “radioactive”, Fairfax says.

The Liberal source said the Brethren men had made it clear to him that they could use the Howard government’s lax electoral disclosure laws to provide cash donations from a large number of individuals, each of which would come in beneath the electoral disclosure limit of $10,500.

Brethren spokesman Daniel Hales said that, “any decision by individual church members to donate money to a political party is a private matter and not directed or co-ordinated by the church … the church has no knowledge of a co-ordinated effort amongst its members to donate money to the Liberal Party in 2007″.

Michael Bachelard
Sydney Morning Herald
Source: Sect tried to donate to Howard campaign

Michael Bachelard is the author of Behind The Exclusive Brethren.

The Exclusive Brethren sect has attempted to prevent a sick 85-year-old former member from revealing her terrible life story by saying that if she remained silent she could be reunited before she dies with the children she was separated from 28 years ago.

Alison Alderton’s family was torn apart at the order of the sect’s world leader in 1980, and she has barely had contact with her children, who are “in fellowship”, since.

Inside the sect, kept apart from Mrs Alderton by the Brethren’s founding doctrine of “separation,” are three daughters and a son, 18 grandchildren and a number of great-grandchildren she does not know and cannot count.

The Exclusive Brethren teaches its members that they have a privileged place in God’s eyes, and must keep spiritually separate from the world, to avoid being “defiled” by it.

But on May 26 this year, as Mrs Alderton lay sick in hospital with dizzy spells and severe vomiting, her daughter Jeanette Sivewright, and son-in-law Roger, paid her an unannounced visit, having been notified of her emergency admission by the retirement village where she lives.

“They came, maybe 8.30pm … sat at the end of my bed, very friendly and nice, talked warmly and it was like the good old days,” Mrs Alderton said.

“They asked me to come and live with them and they would love me and look after me, and I’d probably be restored to my privileges (within the Exclusive Brethren) … which was something I could not consider.”

They rang a few days later and, “they told me that they were prepared to look after me if I would sign a statement that I would never again say anything against the Brethren.” She refused: “He that practises the truth comes to the light.”

“I’d love for them to drop in and be visiting me and bringing their children to meet me … And it’s against ties that God has made that the Brethren cut us off from each other. It’s just so wicked,” she said.

Mrs Alderton told an abbreviated version of her story in The Age in 2006, and a fuller version in today’s The Age Good Weekend magazine, angering the Exclusive Brethren hierarchy.

Mrs Alderton saw her daughter’s proposal as the extension of a similar implied threat from another daughter, Grace, who wrote in February that any public comments “may affect my being able to care for you when you need it”.

A senior Sydney-based Brethren man, Mrs Alderton’s brother, David Stewart, told The Age her family simply “extended the hand of reconciliation”.

“Any successful reconciliation involves compromise. To that end, Alison’s family asked her to stop publicly criticising their church.”

He also denied the Brethren break up families: “Many family members who leave the church maintain regular and warm relations with those still in the church” — a claim rejected by Mrs Alderton and other former members.

Another senior church member, Daniel Hales, said the events in the Good Weekend article “occurred nearly 30 years ago and do not reflect the ethos or activities of the church today”.

Michael Bachelard

The Age

Source: Family care ‘tied to sect gag order’

Extracts of the eagerly awaited book ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’ by premier Australian investigative reporter Michael Bachelard, are due to be published in the “Good Weekend” lift-out of the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age this weekend.

As anticipated, the Exclusive Brethren are not only worried, they’re petrified!  Their new PR spin-doctors (they’ve been through several) are now Jackson-Wells, an Australian firm, who have decided to use the name of Daniel Hales as the Exclusive Brethren spokesman.

Daniel Hales is the brother of the cult leader Bruce Hales and has been largely a background figure in the Hales dynasty, far more concerned with financial matters than the spiritual aspects of life.

Here is their media release, dated today - September 19th, 2008.

MEDIA STATEMENT

Brethren say Fairfax article outdated, inaccurate

Extracts from a new book by journalist Michael Bachelard that will appear in the Good Weekend magazine tomorrow are out of date and contain significant factual inaccuracies, says the Exclusive Brethren Church.

The Good Weekend is published by the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers and the article, entitled ‘Behind Closed Doors’, concerns the break up of the Alderton family in Bathurst, NSW, in the early 1980s.

“The events covered in the article occurred nearly 30 years ago and do not reflect the ethos or activities of the Church today,” said Daniel Hales, a senior member of the Church.

“In 2003, Bruce D Hales, as the new leader of the Church, reviewed the circumstances of the Alderton family and other families who had left the Church in the late seventies and early eighties. apologised for past wrongs and sought to achieve reconciliation.

“As part of this reconciliation process, Mrs Alderton, now 85, was invited to return to the Church and was reunited with some of her children, whom she had not seen for more than 20 years. To our regret, the offer was declined by Mrs Alderton.

Mr Hales also said that there are a number of factual inaccuracies in the article that perpetuate myths about the Church.

“Exclusive Brethren members are not required to have ‘as little to do as possible with outsiders’, in the words of the article,” Mr Hales said. “We employ many non-Brethren people in our businesses, our customers and suppliers are nearly all non-Brethren and our schoolchildren are all taught by non-Brethren teachers.

“We are not ‘required to attend church daily’ and our children are not educated in ‘Brethren-only’ schools. People from outside our Church attend the schools and most Brethren children attend public schools prior to Year Three.

“While our members choose not to attend universities, they obtain tertiary qualifications through the TAFE system. Contrary to what the article says, Brethren women do work after marriage and this work is not restricted to ‘their husbands’ businesses’.

“Families are not kept apart. Many people who leave the Church maintain regular and warm relations with people who remain in the Church.

“Sadly, as in many other families, disagreements over which path to take in life occur and people can become estranged. But independent academic research has shown the divorce rate among Church members is just a fraction of the Australian average.

“This significant number of errors of basic fact by Mr Bachelard does not augur well for the veracity of his new book, which will be published early next week,” Mr Hales said.

Friday, 19 September 2008

It is evident from this crafted statement from the Exclusive Brethren that Jackson-Wells are not considering making any change to the standard Exclusive Brethren approach.  It is however extraordinary that a media release that seems so concerned about accuracy would stoop to inaccuracy after inaccuracy.

Michael should not be too worried by this! Just the significance of the timing and the fact that the brother of the cult leader is involved indicates that there are some wobbly knees in Sydney (or more accurately, Barbados).

Michael Bachelard’s book is stunning! It’s real. It’s true.

“We employ many non-Brethren people in our businesses,”

Of course they do! They won’t eat or socialize with them though. But if you can make a dollar …

“our customers and suppliers are nearly all non-Brethren”

Biz is Biz! The Exclusive Brethren doctrinal concept of ‘Separation’ has never precluded taking money from those not ‘in fellowship’ … just most other aspects of normal human interaction.

“and our schoolchildren are all taught by non-Brethren teachers”

And this is because of the ban on university education! The Exclusive Brethren have no choice but to employ non-EB teachers! It is strange to see a self-inflicted wound appear so quickly in this template release.

““We are not ‘required to attend church daily’”

One of the benefits of operating a cult is that it simply takes a word to change things.  Just a few years ago, there were ‘Attendance Officers’ who would call on you if you did not attend a meeting. The EB web site shows that there is a meeting every day of the week. Like the garage door-opener - if Bruce decides he likes it, suddenly it’s not evil anymore! (we kid you not!)

“our children are not educated in ‘Brethren-only’ schools. People from outside our Church attend the schools and most Brethren children attend public schools prior to Year Three.”

Yes - the teachers and occasionally the Teachers children - but the intent is that the EB will eventually have enough Australian tax dollars to build enough schools to be able to indoctrinate all kids.

“While our members choose not to attend universities”

‘Choose‘? If a teenager was merely to apply to a university, they would be ‘Shut-up’ (shunned). No EB kid has been able to go to university for over 40 years! The cult leaders are afraid of the ramifications of someone learning to think for themselves. Their non-EB hired Teachers are watched like hawks!

“Brethren women do work after marriage and this work is not restricted to ‘their husbands’ businesses’.”

Having their name of one of the thousands of Trusts that have been spawned by the EB is not classified as ‘work’!  The fact remains that Exclusive Brethren women are discriminated against. They have a sole function - to breed. The number of Exclusive Brethren has more than doubled in just 30 years … from within.

“Families are not kept apart.”

An outright lie.

“Many people who leave the Church maintain regular and warm relations with people who remain in the Church. “

Following a Clintionian approach, the above depends on the definition of ‘many‘, ‘regular‘ and ‘warm‘. In the experience of hundreds of people, Jackson-Wells is making an outrageously fictional claim! The vast majority of people who leave the Exclusive Brethren have no relations with those who remain - and it is not those who leave who slam down the phones, turn their backs, cross the street or bolt their doors.

“Sadly, as in many other families, disagreements over which path to take in life occur and people can become estranged”

Yes - but they’re not like ‘many other families’. They are ‘the Bride of Christ’ and if a member disagrees, they are cast out and the remaining spouse is forced to separate and then divorce the ‘estranged’ party.  The Exclusive Brethren then disrupt and encourage the rift between any children involved and the estranged parent. This is standard practice by a cult that is now internationally notorious for ripping families apart.

The significant number of errors in basic fact by Ben Haslem (claiming to speak on behalf of Daniel Hales) does not augur well for the veracity of this or future media communications from them.

Following the successful serialization of ‘Shut Up Sarah’ by Marion Field during 2007, the Peebs.Net Team have successfully negotiated with the publisher Highland Books and the author to bring her 1993/1998 autobiographical story of life in the Exclusive Brethren to a wider audience.

The serialization commenced today and is expected to run for about 6 months.

Access Peebs.Net to view the first episodes of Don’t Call Me SISTER!

A gay youth support group trying to meet to talk about homophobia has had its booking at a Phillip Island camp ground blocked because the resort owners, the Christian Brethren church, deplore their lifestyle.

See - Gay support group gets straight ‘no’ from Brethren

Also: Youth group challenges church stance

The confusion stems from a perceived relationship between the Christian Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren.

The Christian Brethren church is historically linked to the infamous Exclusive Brethren, but broke away in the mid-1800s.

See - Gay support group gets straight ‘no’ from Brethren

Very quickly, the Christian Brethren is another name for the Plymouth Brethren - or more accurately, the ‘Open’ Plymouth Brethren. They are called ‘Open’ for two main reasons:

1 - Because they allow visitors to partake of Communion or Breaking of Bread with them;

2 - To distinguish themselves from the ‘Closed’ or Exclusive Brethren.

The Plymouth Brethren have their roots in Dublin, Ireland.  During the 1830’s the movement grew in numbers and spread to the UK mainland where they were first called Plymouth Brethren.

Two senior figures within the movement had a major disagreement about doctrinal matters in the 1840’s and one of them, a John Nelson Darby decided that he could no longer ‘walk in fellowship’ with those who supported the doctrinal error.  He therefore forced a major split in the Plymouth Brethren now known as the Bethesda Question.

The ‘Darbyites’ were known as the Closed or Exclusive Brethren. This group would not allow a visitor to simply join their communion services - the individual had to be screened first. Those that supported the right of an individual to have his/her own responsibility regarding partaking of communion, were by comparison known as ‘Open’.

Over the years, the Exclusive Brethren became more and more introverted and tangential to mainstream Christianity. Whereas the Open Brethren retained their evangelical bias and missionary zeal, the Exclusive Brethren gradually withdrew from society.

There were several more divisions within the Exclusives - all over doctrinal disagreements.  Each division produced a smaller group with both sides normally proclaiming that they were now the ‘right position’.

In the 1960’s an American, James Taylor Junior took over the world-wide leadership of the Darby/Raven/Taylor strand of the Exclusive Brethren. It is generally considered that from this time, the Exclusive Brethren started to display the unmistakable signs of becoming a cult.  Today’s emphasis by the Exclusives on business and commercial activities can also be traced back to that time.

The Christian / Open Plymouth Brethren are certainly historically related to the group that the Australian Premier, Kevin Rudd, recently called “… an extremist sect and cult”.  But by comparison, they are a pleasant walk in the park!  In any case, the Exclusive Brethren do not own any Summer Camps - they are not allowed to go on vacations.

It is perhaps highly significant that the Christian Brethren are so concerned about the confusion, they are considering changing their name!

For more information, visit Peebs.Net.

What part of Senator Milne’s comments in Australian Parliament yesterday did the Exclusive Brethren not understand? Leaving aside the issue of the Hales-endorsed political smear campaigns, the false names and addresses on the various smear advertisements, the world-wide orchestrated political contributions, the sudden payments into tyre companies that then paid for the printing and/or advertising …

We could even leave aside the trail of broken families, the suicides and wrecked lives that are directly attributable to the Exclusive Brethren.

Senator Milne outlined some basic arithmetic for the Australian people.

It should be looked at by every tax-paying Australian.

She said:

“I want to go to the schools argument for a moment. In his contribution Senator Brown talked about letters that he had had from people who have left the Exclusive Brethren. They told absolutely heart wrenching stories of what it has meant to them to lose their families, and they are actually supporting and wanting an inquiry into the behaviour of this cult. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that it is a cult and yet we understand that the government is not going to support this inquiry. I simply do not understand why the government is not going to support an inquiry into this sect, and I give notice now that I will be seeking to have incorporated into the Hansard these particular letters. I will quote from one of them in relation to schools, and this is of particular interest to me because I understand how the Exclusive Brethren get around the current funding arrangements. In order to qualify for federal government funding for non-government schools you have to have a certain number of students, so what they do is register one school and declare that it has up to 20 campuses all around the state, sometimes as far away as 600 kilometres or whatever from the school. So they set up a whole range of small schools and then claim it to be one school for the purposes of federal government funding.

I would like to know how the Howard government justified a 36 per cent increase in federal government funding for Brethren schools during the Howard years. It went from $10 million over three years to an estimated $50 million over four years for a national student population in total of about 2,000. How is that possible? Earlier today the coalition was talking about wanting transparency and openness in terms of government processes. I want transparency and openness as to how it is that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund the schools of a cult which do not allow the same access to information technology that is required under the curriculum that other students are required to have. I want to know how it is that we are using federal government taxpayers’ funding in schools which actively prevent kids from going on to further education and which actively prevent girls from doing subjects in the manual arts. I find that quite interesting. ”

Senator Christine Milne
Australian Parliament
August 27th, 2008

Let’s look at some facts.

• Australia population: 20,434,176 Est. (See Note 1)
• Tax-paying population: 10,950,000 Est. (See Note 1)
• Contribution to Exclusive Brethren Schools: AUS$50 million
• # of Exclusive Brethren students: 2,000

Based on the above:

- Every Australian tax-payer paid approximately AUS$4.56 direct to the Exclusive Brethren school system over a four year period.

- In effect, the Australian Government paid AUS$25,000 to every Exclusive Brethren student over 4 years. (AUS$6,250 per year)

That is indeed very generous - particularly as the leader of the Exclusive Brethren stated in ‘Living Our Beliefs’:

OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMY

Over the past forty years the Brethren have gradually left the employ of non-Brethren companies and institutions and moved into our own businesses. This trend greatly accelerated during the 1970s and 1980s due to a desire to reach a closer accommodation with the Scriptures. Gross turnover of all Brethren businesses in Australia is about $2.2 billion, providing a great contribution to the Australian economy.

- Bruce Hales, 2007 (See Note 2)

With a gross turnover in 2007 of AUS $2.2 billion, The Exclusive Brethren are in a position to contribute considerably more to their own educational requirements than the rest of the population. This is particularly relevant when one considers the extraordinary measures the EB take in using tax-free Trusts to channel funds from all over the world.

With his name written into every Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room Trust throughout the world, Bruce Hales is one of the largest international controllers of real-estate. For this reason alone, the Exclusive Brethren are desperate to maintain their tax-exempt status on their locked, fenced and gated windowless halls. (See Note 3)

Even a conservative 4.5% of the claimed Australian EB GDP contribution would channel AUS$100 million to their children.

And then there is the question of ROI - what does the Australian economy receive in return? The Exclusive Brethren ban university education to their members. They ban any form of professional association. Aa a result, their schools have to be staffed by non-Exclusive Brethren qualified teachers. (See Note 2)

EB Girls have one task ahead of them - to become homemakers. EB Boys can only work for another EB business, or start their own. The Australian economy is certainly benefiting from their contribution (albeit limited) to the GDP, but what of the Community? Should not generosity of this magnitude benefit the Australian people as a whole?

One wonders what the real reasons are behind a tally of now three failed attempts to get an inquiry started?

It cannot be their comparative contribution to the Australian GDP (AUS $980 billion in 2007 (See Note 1)) as this equates to just 0.2%.

Is it the fear of being seen as acting in a discriminatory fashion? How many suicides and broken families will it take before the Australian government recognizes that they are not only harboring but are actively supporting a tiny minority that have no interest in either the communities they live in or in contributing to the human family anywhere.

As the headline blazes, “Leave us alone”. This is exactly what they want.

The Exclusive Brethren leaders know what will be discovered once the inevitable inquiry begins.

For the sake of the children who are being carefully segregated from a wider society and wider choices, we trust that the Australian people will start doing some arithmetic of their own and start to demand answers.

From our perspective, we just want our families back.

We miss them.

Thank you Bob Brown and Chris Milne for trying again.

Peebs.Net Team

Note 1 - CIA Factbook

Note 2 - Bruce Hales - Living Our Beliefs

Note 3 - Exclusive Brethren Meeting Rooms

COMMITTEES

Community Affairs Committee Reference Debate
resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Bob Brown:

That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2008:

(a) exemptions for the Exclusive Brethren and its members from Australian laws or administrative decisions;

(b) public funding, tax or other arrangements which do or may advantage the Exclusive Brethren over other community organisations;

(c) the activities of the Exclusive Brethren or its members which threaten or harm families, in particular, the best interests of children;

(d) the covert, as against overt, activities of the Exclusive Brethren or its members in the political process in Australia; and (e) any related matters.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (6.14 pm)

—I rise in continuance of the debate on Senator Brown’s motion. Last night, in beginning my remarks, I was commenting on the fact that when I was teaching on the northwest coast of Tasmania many years ago I had a very bright and capable young woman in my class who was not allowed to go on to further education because the Exclusive Brethren prohibited it. They prohibit their young people from being able to go to university at all. As a former Meadowbank school principal, David Stewart, an Exclusive Brethren principal said:

We do not go in for higher learning. We gave up universities in the 1960s as the hotbed of atheism. They prove that everything is nothing to their own satisfaction. We have suffered no loss to our knowledge. We particularly recoil from novels and cinemas.

That is why those young people cannot go to university: because the brethren say so. They also make sure that they have arranged marriages and that once women are married they cannot work. It is the most repressive culture. But even if you were to accept that, by far and away the worst they do is that they break up families. If anybody tries to leave the Exclusive Brethren, that is the point at which they are cut off. They are cut off from children, parents, families, whatever. A person leaves and it is as if they have died from that point on. No matter how much the person on the outside tries to make contact with their family, they are cut off and denied. How is it that we are allowing this in Australia? We have already had evidence, and we have seen, that they have tried to interfere, for example, in matters before the Family Court.

But I want to concentrate for a minute on schools, because the Exclusive Brethren gets Commonwealth government funding for its private schools. Why is taxpayers’ money going to fund schools which actively prohibit people from going on to further education? My understanding is that you get federal funding if you meet the curriculum requirements of the states. How can these schools meet the curriculum requirements of the states when the Brethren have said that they are not allowed to have computers? Until recently they could not even have fax machines. We understand that some computers have been bought and left in boxes in the foyer of the school. However, we have also heard recently that the Elect Vessel has decided that Exclusive Brethren can now have access to some computers but that they will be ordered through him and through his businesses. He will provide whatever is needed under these arrangements, and we do not even know whether that is in Australia or New Zealand.

I have seen a report from the Exclusive Brethren today arguing that they are being vilified. In fact they say they obey the law scrupulously. That is not so. We have had before the parliament in the last few years the discrepancies under the Electoral Act, where they did not obey the law scrupulously, and they set up front companies in order to fund the Howard government’s election campaign. To this day we still do not know who gave the donations to Willmac, so that Willmac could then make a single donation to the Liberal Party during the 2004 election—and that is ongoing. Another way in which they do not obey the law scrupulously was demonstrated on a current affairs program. An Exclusive Brethren woman said that she had transferred money, large sums of cash, in an out of Australia. In Ngaire Thomas’s book she said that it is quite common for them to bring bound paper parcels of cash in and out of the country. There are all sorts of things that we need to look at in terms of these tax arrangements; in the transporting money arrangements and the deductions that are granted for being members of a so-called religion when the businesses are being run on a for-profit basis.

I want to go to the schools argument for a moment. In his contribution Senator Brown talked about letters that he had had from people who have left the Exclusive Brethren. They told absolutely heart wrenching stories of what it has meant to them to lose their families, and they are actually supporting and wanting an inquiry into the behaviour of this cult. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that it is a cult and yet we understand that the government is not going to support this inquiry. I simply do not understand why the government is not going to support an inquiry into this sect, and I give notice now that I will be seeking to have incorporated into the Hansard these particular letters. I will quote from one of them in relation to schools, and this is of particular interest to me because I understand how the Exclusive Brethren get around the current funding arrangements. In order to qualify for federal government funding for non-government schools you have to have a certain number of students, so what they do is register one school and declare that it has up to 20 campuses all around the state, sometimes as far away as 600 kilometres or whatever from the school. So they set up a whole range of small schools and then claim it to be one school for the purposes of federal government funding.

I would like to know how the Howard government justified a 36 per cent increase in federal government funding for Brethren schools during the Howard years. It went from $10 million over three years to an estimated $50 million over four years for a national student population in total of about 2,000. How is that possible? Earlier today the coalition was talking about wanting transparency and openness in terms of government processes. I want transparency and openness as to how it is that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund the schools of a cult which do not allow the same access to information technology that is required under the curriculum that other students are required to have. I want to know how it is that we are using federal government taxpayers’ funding in schools which actively prevent kids from going on to further education and which actively prevent girls from doing subjects in the manual arts. I find that quite interesting.

Also quite interesting is the relationship between Brethren schools and Brethren businesses and politics. We know that the Liberal Party used the names and addresses of Brethren schools to authorise political advertisements during the 2004 election campaign. For example, there have been reports that when government funds are received at the Victorian Glenvale School the money is channelled into the Brethren marketing company, ProVision, putting at risk funds needed to pay for teachers. That is an allegation that I would like to see investigated in the course of an inquiry.

There are so many issues in relation to the Exclusive Brethren. One that is really of concern is about a website that was set up — peebs.net. It was set up by people who have left the Brethren and it is their main support network. These people have been in effectively closed societies for a long time and when they come out into the broader society it is the equivalent of coming out of jail because they have not had to interact with the broader society in their whole lives. This website has been particularly important in supporting them. If you go and have a look at the website you will see all their stories. They also have a suicide support watch on that website for people who are not coping with losing access to their families: children, parents and siblings That website is critical and yet we now know that the Brethren in the USA are trying to force the closure of that website in spite of the fact that it has saved the lives of desperate people who have used it for emergency contact. We now know that there is litigation, as I said, in the United States to try to shut down this website.

That is the kind of power these people have. They have enough power to gain entry to the Prime Minister’s office. In spite of the fact that they do not vote, they feel comfortable intervening in elections in extremely dubious ways and, as I said, not transparent ways—particularly in relation to that Wilmac incident in the 2004 election, because you cannot get behind the front company that they used to channel their donations to the Liberal Party. Of course, we will never forget the Tasmanian election where the same strategy was used and where advertisements—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator MILNE

—I am very glad that Senator Abetz is here to answer this because I have always wanted to know how it was that the Liberal Party wrote the ad, placed the ad and paid for the ad from the Exclusive Brethren during that campaign.

Senator Abetz

—We didn’t.

Senator MILNE

—That came out in the Anti- Discrimination Tribunal in Tasmania when Damien Mantach was forced to admit that that was the case. He then argued that some kind of mix-up occurred as to why the Liberal Party’s cheques were paying for ads that were placed as part of the Exclusive Brethren campaign in the Tasmanian 2006 election.

Senator Abetz

—That’s just wrong.

Senator MILNE

—I would like to hear from Senator Abetz whether Damien Mantach was not telling the truth in the tribunal, whether the tribunal had false information or what was going on. There is a very clear and close relationship between the coalition and the Exclusive Brethren and there is a paper trail through that Anti-Discrimination Tribunal which demonstrates it.

It is no coincidence, in my view, that Damien Mantach worked in Prime Minister Howard’s office at the time that the Liberal Party ran the campaign with the Brethren against the Greens in the 2004 federal election and then moved to Tasmania to run the Liberal Party campaign in the 2006 state election where— surprise, surprise—exactly the same tactics were used. We were then able to prove through the Anti- Discrimination Tribunal that those ads were written, placed and paid for—

Senator Abetz

—We proved—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Carol Brown)

—Senator Abetz!

Senator MILNE

—as I indicated, by the Liberal Party. When I say ‘we’ I am referring to the people who took action in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. It was proved there. I do not mean ‘we’ in terms of the Greens.

Senator Abetz

—A quick recovery now!

Senator MILNE

—It is on the record that the Greens did not appear in the tribunal, so I am not alleging that I was in the tribunal.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

—Senator Abetz!

Senator MILNE

—However, I am not going to be distracted by this because the fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party and the Exclusive Brethren were as one in the community campaigning and it was not until the matter became very hot in the lead-up to the last federal election that the Prime Minister gave a directive to the Liberal Party not to associate as closely with the Exclusive Brethren.

I find it extraordinary that the Labor Party are not interested in actually examining the relationship between the Exclusive Brethren and the coalition. They ought to be interested in how Commonwealth money is spent. I think that, at the very least, we deserve to have an inquiry into the funding of Brethren schools and the basis on which that funding occurs and whether Brethren schools actually fulfil the state curriculum guidelines as required by state governments in order to qualify for federal government funding.

I also want to quote from another letter from an ex- Brethren member in Tasmania which says:

Since we made our decision to leave the cult, which was based on what was the best for our family, including our children, we believed it was in their best interests for us to give them the freedom of choice as they matured. This freedom of choice is to be able to partake in the activities of our community which the cult totally and absolutely forbids. Our daughter went to the Melbourne conservatory of music and is now doing a doctorate, our elder son was in the Air Force as a pilot officer and has a degree in aeronautical engineering, and our younger son is now a plasterer. He is also in the process of going to Uganda to work with the orphans there. I give you this background because, if we had stayed with the cult, our children would not have had these opportunities. Since we have left, which would be about 20 years ago now, my wife’s parents have not contacted her—not once. They have not even contacted their grandchildren. They did not advise her on the deaths of her grandparents. They disowned her and she may as well have been dead and buried simply because she chose to pursue a different lifestyle. When we made our decision the cult offered to look after our children whilst we reconsidered our decision. If we had allowed this, we would never have seen them again.

How can this be going on in Australia in 2008? How can we be allowing this cult to lead to the break-up of families and to this misery? And then they try to close down the only capacity those people have to contact each other and to talk to each other. How is that possible and how is it that the Senate could possibly deny an inquiry into the way this cult operates? I urge senators to reconsider this particular motion. We are asking for an inquiry into the industrial relations exemptions that they have had, their public funding, tax and other arrangements, and the activities which threaten families and the best interests of children. What is wrong with having an inquiry into this cult? Perhaps somebody can enlighten me as to what is wrong with inquiring into those activities when it is clear they are not in the best interests of our community.

We have the coalition prepared to go with interventions all over the country for whatever else it likes but apparently a parliament not interested in intervening in the best interests of a transparent, open, compassionate, decent Australian society. I do not believe that the activities of this cult contribute to that when they do not allow parents to contact their children and vice versa, and when they keep people from their parents, grandparents and the like. It is cruel, it is harmful and it should not be tolerated in our society today. Before I conclude I seek leave to incorporate into the Hansard the letter to the Prime Minister circulated yesterday by Senator Brown.

Leave not granted.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (6.31 pm)

—I note that it was Senator Abetz who did not give leave.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (6.32 pm)—

Here we go again — a third attempt by Senator Bob Brown to get an inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren. An attempt was made by Senator Brown two years and 12 days ago on 15 August 2006. Nothing has changed except that Senator Brown is two years older but, unfortunately, none the wiser. The same hyperbole and vilification of yesterday’s speech by Senator Brown is contained in the Hansard of 15 August 2006. Many words, but no evidence. Senator Brown makes the same old points with a now decidedly worn out record playing the same old tune.

The coalition’s position on this is straightforward and principled. If there are allegations of wrongdoing, report them to the appropriate authorities. Other than that, within the laws of this country people are entitled to live their lives as they deem appropriate. And they are entitled to do so even if we disagree with them. As I have said before in this place, I doubt if anyone in this chamber would subscribe to the Exclusive Brethren approach to life. But no-one has shown any illegality by them and if there is, report it to the authorities. Other than that, let them be.

It is instructive to learn that allegations have been made to the authorities and the Australian Federal Police, and dismissed. There is still one allegation being considered although no allegation of wrongdoing so far has been determined. My view is, and the coalition’s view is, let the cards fall where they will. If wrongdoing is found, let the law deal with those involved. But to suggest that the behaviour of one or two members of a group requires a full inquiry into the whole group is, I must say, stretching credulity.

But we do have a bizarre conspiracy theory in Senator Brown’s speech yesterday. He told the Senate:

I think the Senate has every right to ask why … the Australian Federal Police have not completed that inquiry and reported publicly.

Hello? Are the Australian Federal Police now involved in this huge conspiracy as well? You know what? The Senate does not have to ask that question. Senator Brown of his own volition can ask that question by— and this might be a unique experience for him— turning up to Senate estimates and asking the Australian Federal Police about this inquiry, how it is going, et cetera. That is open to every single individual senator in this place if they have a concern that the Australian Federal Police are being tardy. I would invite Senator Brown to take that course of action if he actually believes that the Australian Federal Police are somehow conspiring on the side of the Exclusive Brethren. But senators Brown and Milne provide no evidence for their assertions that would support an inquiry.

One of their interesting allegations is that the Exclusive Brethren do not allow computers in their schools and actively discourage children from learning how to use computers. I do not know if that is the case but if that is the case I would say, as would the coalition, that is a matter of great regret. But ultimately the standards, curriculum and other requirements for all schools, and their registration, which of course is the precursor to funding, are vetted and administered by the eight state and territory Labor governments and their education departments. So now we have the eight Labor states and territories also involved in this conspiracy in providing funding to the Exclusive Brethren—no longer just Mr Howard’s former office, no longer the Australian Federal Police; now the eight Labor state and territory governments are apparently involved as well.

From the coalition point of view there are simply standards that apply to every single school and, if any Exclusive Brethren school falls within the categories, if they qualify for funding then they should get funding. If they do not qualify according to the standards, then they should not get funding. At the end of the day this is an issue of whether the standards are appropriate for the various schools but there is no specific category that says that only Exclusive Brethren schools will get this sort of funding. They are not mentioned by name. There is a broader category in each of the states and territories which determines whether or not a school is to receive funding.

But back to the computers, because Senator Brown relied on that in his speech yesterday—and, very interestingly, I note that Mr Rudd seems to have relied on it when just before the election he tried to jump on the bandwagon. Senator Brown quoted:

The Exclusive Brethren … actively discourages children from using information technology, from learning how to use computers—

As I said before, if that is the case that is to be regretted and I do not think that they do their children any favours by such a policy.

I think that a number of senators would have received a copy of this letter today. It is by the federal member for Griffith who also happens to rejoice in the title of Prime Minister of this country. It is a letter dated 31 May 2007 addressed to a Mr Greg Thomas, principal of Agnew School, which I understand is in fact an Exclusive Brethren school. In it—and his familiarity with the principal is quite clear because it starts ‘Dear Greg’; it does not say ‘Dear Principal’ or ‘Dear Mr Thomas’—he says:

I am pleased to inform you that—

under the Investing in our Schools program—

the application tendered by Agnew School … has been successful.

And guess what it was for: the provision of wordex machines and computers. Mr Rudd goes on:

I would like to extend my warmest congratulations …

So here we have proof positive that Exclusive Brethren schools do seem to take on board computers. If this is all fictitious, then could I suggest that Senator Brown goes to the education Senate estimates and asks the department whether there is verification whether or not those computers have been delivered et cetera?

Some of these allegations on closer examination clearly do not stand up to scrutiny. Indeed the federal minister for education, Julia Gillard, has written to the Independent member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor— and undoubtedly he is now part of the conspiracy as well, as is Ms Gillard of course by this. She says in a letter to Mr Windsor, dated 16 April 2008:

I can confirm that the Meadowbank Education Trust School—

which I understand is an Exclusive Brethren school—

and its subsidiary campuses are being funded in accordance with the Act and that it continues to meet the conditions associated with the current funding agreement and its legal obligations.

If the Greens senators have information that can contradict that which Ms Gillard has written to the Independent member for New England, let them bring it forward, let them mention it at Senate estimates, and let us have a proper analysis of these matters.

I move on to the other matters that have been raised, and that is Senator Brown’s request for a 15-page document to be put into Hansard. I say to Senator Brown and the Greens: if the information in that document is to be incorporated into Hansard, there is nothing stopping the Australian Greens from actually reading the information contained in that document and putting that onto the Hansard. But by giving leave, every individual senator in this place would be vouching for that information and allowing it to have privilege. There is nothing stopping Senator Brown from reading it into the Hansard and if he so wants he can do so. But the coalition does not want to be part of a process which would say, and allow Senator Brown to say, ‘I tried to put it into Hansard and, guess what: nobody objected so therefore it has the imprimatur of the totality of the Senate.’ In relation to that 15-page document, there was a letter written to the Prime Minister—

Senator Bob Brown

—Madam Acting Deputy President Hurley, I rise on a point of order. I seek a ruling from the President whether giving leave for incorporation indeed puts the imprimatur of all senators on a document.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

—I will take that question on notice and refer it to the President.

Senator ABETZ

—That of course would be the claim that would be made by the Australian Greens. But in relation to this letter to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, quite rightly said that all the allegations should be referred to the appropriate authorities. Nobody has suggested to us that all those allegations have in fact been brought to the appropriate authorities and that somehow the great conspiracy has gone further to ensure that those allegations have not been investigated and, until people follow the proper course of action of referring these matters to the appropriate authorities, I on this rare occasion happen to agree with the Prime Minister that these matters should be aired with the appropriate authority.

Can I say in response to Senator Milne’s contribution that it is disappointing when a former teacher refers to a pupil and quite clearly—because, although the name was not mentioned, Devonport in Tasmania is a small community—identifies an Exclusive Brethren girl student. There ain’t that many of them! So anybody who would have been at the school at the time would know and be able to identify who that girl is. I think it is a matter of regret that Senator Milne has stooped to that.

Having said that, I will say that the Exclusive Brethren have some beliefs—I suppose a lot of beliefs—that we on the coalition side clearly do not agree with. But the test is: are they illegal? Encouraging young people not to continue with education I think is a matter of great regret, if that is what they do. But, in this society, by the time people turn 18 they actually have a choice: they can decide whether or not they want to go on with education.

Senator Milne

—They can’t; they will be thrown out.

Senator ABETZ

—Senator Milne says they will be thrown out—and, chances are, that may well be right. But can I say that in a free society people will continue to join the Exclusive Brethren. They will also continue to leave the Exclusive Brethren—we had a story, through Senator Milne, of a family that left the Exclusive Brethren and did all sorts of wonderful things, including pursuing careers. And, whether we like it or not, some people will stop talking to each other in this society. Exclusive Brethren have a particular view with which I, respectfully, very strongly disagree. But how on earth can a Senate inquiry force somebody to talk to somebody else if their religious belief, for whatever reason, is that they will not talk to such a person? People actually do have free will, and if that is the decision they make, regrettable though it is, then that is unfortunately the way it will turn out.

I simply say in conclusion: what is all this about? Very simply, what all this is about was shown and exposed by Senator Brown’s own words in the Sunday Tasmanian of 13 August 2006. He said:

… my beef with the Exclusive Brethren is not about religious belief.

So all this talk about cult and religious belief is not Senator Brown’s concern; he has admitted that himself. He went on to say:

“It’s about them venturing into politics …

That is the beef that Senator Brown has. It is not their religious beliefs, that they do not allow people to talk to each other or allegedly allow computers to be used. That is not his concern. If they had not have ventured into politics, as he alleges, he would have been happy for them to continue with all the practices that he now claims he abhors. That shows the double standard with which Senator Brown comes to this debate. Even more so, under a heading of ‘Exclusive Brethren payback’ Senator Brown called for a public register of all Exclusive Brethren business premises. Can I say: very distasteful. Why would you have a public register of Exclusive Brethren businesses? Why not green businesses or Roman Catholic businesses or Protestant businesses or Muslim businesses? Very, very distasteful, might I suggest. And when the leader and deputy leader of an Australian political party start descending into this sort of behaviour on a personal vendetta because people dared to venture into politics, then I think we have come to a very, very sad state of affairs in this country.

In relation to the Exclusive Brethren not voting, I think it is an unfortunate decision, a regrettable decision. I encourage everybody to vote. But the Commonwealth Electoral Act has an exclusion based on religious belief. It applies to everybody. I do not know how many Exclusive Brethren there are in this country. I would think 10,000 would be tops—by a long, long way.

Senator Bob Brown

—You’re wrong again.

Senator ABETZ

—Oh, Senator Brown says ‘wrong again’. Well, I would be interested to know what his figure is. Can I tell you this: it would not be 62,000— and that is how many people claimed the religious exemption, under the legislation Senator Milne complains about, at the 2004 election. Why have an inquiry only into the Exclusive Brethren exercising that right and not into the 52,000 other Australians who exercised that same exclusion for religious beliefs? That is why we as a coalition oppose this proposal.

Debate interrupted