When a Liberal senator, I was asked by the party to meet with some ‘business people’. Nobody told me they were Brethren

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

In the final weeks of the 2025 federal election campaign, as chair of three Liberal campaigns in Western Australia, I was asked by a senior party official to meet two men described to me as small business people who wanted to assist local federal campaigns.

I was not told they were members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. However, I had met Brethren members previously in the course of my political work and recognised them from that prior experience. They offered campaign assistance and during the discussion sought confidential campaign financial information and individual logins to Feedback, the Liberal Party’s voter-contact system, so they could conduct telephone canvassing from their own premises. Feedback contains electoral-roll data and information recorded through contact with voters. As a former deputy federal director of the party, I was not prepared to authorise unsupervised access of that kind and refused their requests.

When I raised my concerns with party officials, I was assured the relevant party liaison would “turn off” all involvement in my three campaigns. I understood that to mean their participation would cease. I was also requested not to refer to them as Brethren.

The 2025 election was tough and volunteers were scarce. There was a temptation not to look a gift horse in the mouth. But that made it more important, not less, to know who was helping, what they wanted in return, if anything, and who had facilitated the support.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church is a tightly-knit Christian community of about 16,000 members in Australia, led by Sydney-based Bruce D. Hales. It practises separation from the wider world and, traditionally, most members have not voted, although the church says some now choose to vote. Some Brethren members and businesses associated with members have a documented history of political campaigning and making donations. The church says such political activity is undertaken by individuals, not the church itself.

At pre-poll booths in my campaigns, I saw people I recognised as Brethren members turning up in growing numbers, often wearing similar generic Liberal T-shirts. I also saw them being co-ordinated and briefed by people who were not members of local campaign teams. While some candidates understandably appreciated the extra assistance, long-standing volunteers told me they felt uncomfortable, and at times intimidated, by some of the activity around the campaign.

Recent reports in this masthead alleged that some Brethren members paid far-right activists, some with neo-Nazi links, to track and heckle the prime minister as well as Labor, Greens and independent candidates during the election campaign. It was also reported that Brethren figures paid influencers thousands of dollars to create headline-generating stunts. The church has denied those allegations. If they are true, such conduct is abhorrent.

It appeared to me that either the assurance I had been given to “turn off” Brethren involvement in the campaigns I managed had not been carried out, or the involvement was continuing through some other arrangement I had not been told about.

This apparent secrecy concerned me. After the election I raised these issues in the Liberal Party room during a session with election reviewers Pru Goward and Nick Minchin. Some colleagues accused me of religious discrimination. I made it clear that my concern was not their faith or their right to participate. It was the terms of the assistance, the lack of internal transparency and the request for information I did not believe should be given outside the campaign.

Brethren members have the same right as every Australian to support the party or candidate they believe in. Legitimate participation and transparency are not competing principles.

The public record since then has made the questions I raised inside my party even more important. In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry, the church denied co-ordinating its members’ political involvement. Yet the same submission acknowledged that participating members “clearly were” co-ordinated. So, if the church did not co-ordinate them, who did?

The Goward-Minchin review recorded divided views about the Brethren’s role and said further investigation was needed into why their involvement had attracted such objection. I have seen no public account that the party has taken that step.

This matters well beyond a single political party. If significant groups such as trade unions, lobby groups or churches are involved in campaigns, voters should be able to understand who is participating, how they are engaged in the campaign and under what rules.

Parliamentary scrutiny of the Brethren church’s election involvement has itself become highly politically contested. The Coalition members’ dissenting report argues that the inquiry has become partisan and risks undermining confidence in the committee’s work. That makes fair, evidence-based scrutiny more important, not less. My concern is not the Brethren’s faith or their right to participate in politics. It is whether organised campaign involvement was transparent, properly authorised and accountable.

I am not alleging misconduct, but only the Liberal Party can explain what happened inside the party. My questions remain. Who authorised or facilitated the involvement? Who co-ordinated with whom? What access was sought by, or provided to, Brethren-linked campaigners? What were party officials, candidates and campaign directors told? Were any commitments or expectations attached to the assistance? How were concerns, including mine, handled?

I applaud the Liberal Party for establishing a wide-ranging commission to examine the party’s organisational governance, financial accountability and transparency, and federal executive powers, including in federal campaigns. I hope its work will also address and transparently report on any arrangements between the party and Brethren-linked campaigners, putting these questions to rest.

Campaigns require confidentiality, but it cannot become a shield against legitimate internal or electoral scrutiny. If the arrangements were proper, there should be no difficulty putting the facts on the public record. If there were failures of governance, process or oversight, they should be acknowledged and fixed. The Liberal Party should strive to lead on accountability and transparency, setting the campaigning standards we expect others to meet.

Linda Reynolds is a former Liberal senator for Western Australia and former defence minister.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.