‘What's going on?': Why the Exclusive Brethren are out in force this election
Their church was a cult, he said, adding: 'They don't vote ... but they all of a sudden have found this enthusiasm in their hundreds to travel around the country to hand out how-to-vote [cards]. What's the quid pro quo? What is going on there?'
This is what's going on: a systematic, lavishly funded attempt by an organisation with a strong financial agenda to influence the federal election without disclosing who they are or what want.
Its campaign is part of a long history of attempted political influence, money politics and secrecy, from the sect once known as the Exclusive Brethren.
In 2004, its global leader, Sydney businessman Bruce D. Hales, feared Labor's Mark Latham might win power and urged followers to act in support of John Howard.
Letters, witnesses and public documents emerged two years later showing that, within days of Hales' callout, Brethren businessmen had set up a holding company, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from mystery sources, funded anti-Labor and anti-Greens advertising and put boots on the ground.
Initially, none of this was linked to the church. The authorisations for material came from unknown individuals, sometimes using their middle names, in obscure places, or using false addresses.
Confronted later, the Brethren denied any involvement, saying its members had acted independently.
Taken together it was a material intervention. Its advertising spend in the 2004 Australian election exceeded $370,000 – the fifth largest of any third-party donor that year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
11 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The $334 million Labor ‘slush fund' for regional roads
The state government's $334 million Regional Roads Fund has come under scrutiny by the NSW Auditor-General – the second Labor election funding scheme examined by the Audit Office in a matter of months. None of the 30 projects allocated funding, including $50 million for an upgrade around the corner from Roads Minister Jenny Aitchison's residence in the Hunter, were subject to a business case assessment ahead of the state election in March 2023. Established as a mechanism to allocate commitments made by Labor while in opposition, the fund has been widely criticised by the Nationals because funded projects are overwhelmingly in Labor-held or targeted seats, with none in the state's west. The state government has argued that distribution of funding was necessary after years of Coalition underinvestment in these areas. Of projects funded under the Regional Roads Fund, $40 million will be spent on the planning and design of the Gosford bypass, a further $20 million on the Bulli Bypass investigation and $12 million for improvements to the Golden Highway. A draft of the Audit Office's 2025-26 performance audits list was obtained by the Herald and later confirmed by the agency, which said the final report was expected to be tabled later in 2025. The audit was made public after this masthead's inquiry. 'This audit will examine whether Transport for NSW administered grants to councils through the RRF program in compliance with the Grants Administration Guide and relevant administrative and legislative requirements,' the Audit Office's website states. A spokeswoman for the Audit Office said: 'As the audit has commenced, Transport for NSW has been engaged as the auditee and is familiar with the scope and timelines for the audit.' It is the second government fund examined by the Audit Office in just months. In late June, the NSW auditor-general, Bola Oyetunji, handed down a report considering the Local Small Commitments Allocation (LSCA), a grants fund set up to distribute $400,000 commitments in every electorate. Oyetunji said 'key steps' in the administration of the fund could not be examined because they were carried out while Labor was in opposition. Moreover, there was 'insufficient evidence' that some community projects represented value for money. More than 50 conflicts had not been identified and managed, the Audit Office found.
Sydney Morning Herald
11 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?
The Age
11 minutes ago
- The Age
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?
