Key Takeaways:
- The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church’s behavior during the 2025 Australian election was widely criticized for being intimidating and aggressive towards voters and opposing candidates.
- The church’s members, wearing Liberal Party t-shirts, would often surround and harass voters, making it difficult for them to access polling booths.
- The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) acknowledged that there were challenges posed by the Brethren’s behavior, but claimed that it did not compromise the integrity of the election.
- The church’s submission to the electoral matters committee argued that its members’ actions were separate from the church itself, despite evidence suggesting coordination and organization.
- The incident has raised concerns about the influence of religious groups in politics and the need for greater transparency and accountability.
Introduction to the Incident
The 2025 Australian election was marked by a series of disturbing incidents involving the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. According to Labor campaign director Madonna Stott, the experience was "like a war zone" and has left her with a lasting sense of unease. The church’s members, wearing Liberal Party t-shirts, would often surround and harass voters, making it difficult for them to access polling booths. This behavior was not only intimidating but also raised concerns about the influence of religious groups in politics.
The Australian Electoral Commission’s Response
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) acknowledged that there were challenges posed by the Brethren’s behavior, but claimed that it did not compromise the integrity of the election. Acting deputy electoral commissioner Kath Gleeson stated that the AEC wants voters to feel safe and that most of the problems occurred outside the six-meter zone around polling places controlled by the AEC. However, this response has been criticized for downplaying the severity of the incident and the impact it had on voters and opposing candidates.
The Church’s Involvement
The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church’s submission to the electoral matters committee argued that its members’ actions were separate from the church itself, despite evidence suggesting coordination and organization. The church’s leader, Bruce Hales, had encouraged his members to get involved in the election, and his sons had appeared in a video urging members to "dominate the play" and "not leave any gas in the tank." This has raised questions about the church’s level of involvement and whether it should be considered a third-party campaigner.
Personal Accounts of Intimidation
Several individuals have come forward to share their personal accounts of intimidation and harassment at the hands of the Brethren’s members. Cassandra Barrett, a voter, described being surrounded by a "sea of blue" and having how-to-vote cards thrust at her and her son. She felt overwhelmed and intimidated, and the experience has left her hesitant to participate in future elections. Former ALP state MP Rachel Nolan stated that the tone of the election had changed and that people may be deterred from voting if they feel they have to "run a gauntlet" to do so.
The Broader Implications
The incident has raised concerns about the influence of religious groups in politics and the need for greater transparency and accountability. The electoral matters committee has heard stark stories from independent, teal, and Labor campaigners around the country, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive investigation into the Brethren’s behavior. The committee’s deputy chairman, Tasmanian Liberal senator Richard Colbeck, has acknowledged that the church’s involvement should be declared if it was coordinated, and that unions are already required to register as third-party campaigners.
The Church’s Response
The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church has ignored questions about whether it has offered its members pastoral counseling about their behavior. Instead, it has made a submission arguing that it did not participate in the election nor coordinate the political involvement of its members. However, this claim has been disputed by evidence suggesting coordination and organization. The church has also claimed that its members have been bullied and harassed, but has not addressed the issue of its own members’ behavior.
Conclusion
The incident involving the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church during the 2025 Australian election has raised important questions about the influence of religious groups in politics and the need for greater transparency and accountability. The church’s behavior was widely criticized for being intimidating and aggressive, and has left a lasting impact on voters and opposing candidates. As the electoral matters committee continues its investigation, it is essential that the church’s involvement is thoroughly examined and that measures are taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.
