Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

Tens of thousands of dollars, and yet he says, ‘It’s okay if I do it, but not if the Exclusive Brethren may be involved.’ If there is such an allegation, I suggest that he do what I did. When I was aware of Senator Brown’s money activities, I simply pointed them out to the Australian Electoral Commission to look at. I did not seek a Senate motion of inquiry into Senator Brown’s RJ Brown Forest Account, which was getting international donations and anonymous donations; I just referred it to the appropriate authority: the Australian Electoral Commission. That is exactly what Senator Brown ought to be doing if he has any allegations against members of the Exclusive Brethren.

In relation to the receipt of funding from the federal government, at every Senate estimates the Greens are able to ask questions. I think the fact that they have never done that is proof of the pudding. Nevertheless, Senator Brown puts the smear in the motion, makes the suggestion and the allegation, but, of course, never follows it up at Senate estimates where he might actually be told the truth—that there is nothing sinister.

I move on to section (d), which refers to taxation and other special arrangements. The last time I looked at the tax act there was no clause saying, ‘The Exclusive Brethren shall pay no tax.’ In fact, the clauses that apply to the Exclusive Brethren fall to them by virtue of them being Australian citizens—by virtue of them falling into the provisions of the tax act. But no case has been made; just another assertion, just another smear. Indeed, it reminds me of the infamous occasion when President Johnson was allegedly going to accuse one of his opponents of quite unsavoury activities. He was chastised by a staffer who said, ‘But, Mr President, you can’t say that,’ to which President Johnson allegedly responded, ‘Well, let him deny it.’ The same unethical attitude is being displayed by Senator Brown with this motion this afternoon.

Let us move to section (e) of the motion: ‘special arrangements and exemptions from Australian law that relate to Exclusive Brethren schools and voting’. The last time I looked, there were 2,694 independent, non-government schools in this country. Thirty-three of those were Exclusive Brethren schools and received funding from the Australian government. Do you know why they received funding from the Australian federal government? Because the six Labor states accredited them as being worthy educational institutions. So, if the state Labor governments tick off on 2,694 schools, why do you only pick on the 33 Exclusive Brethren schools and not the 2,661 other schools? We know why: this is all about vindictiveness.

I now move to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I do not know how many Exclusive Brethren of voting age there are in this country, but let us say that there are about 10,000. Section 245(14), gives religious excuse as an exception for not voting. Do you know how many of our fellow Australians availed themselves of that provision at the last election? There were 62,290. So why do you seek an inquiry only into the Exclusive Brethren and not the other 50,000-plus Australians who availed themselves of that section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? We know why: because they deem to ‘venture into politics’.

Of course, the coup de grace, the one smear in case you forgot any smear in all of the other recitals, is: ‘any related matters’. That is an opportunity for the Greens to attack the Exclusive Brethren on any other ground they might be able to drag up. No substance, just a smear and wild assertions—the usual stock in trade of the Greens. But when you do that to a religious minority, you have taken that very big step too far.

This motion has rightly caused Senator Brown many difficulties. The Privileges Committee has had to deal with Senator Brown’s motion. Then, when I accused him of religious vilification, he deleted the words ‘religious organisation’ from before the words ‘Exclusive Brethren’ on the lame excuse that it was bad grammar. The motion was not riddled with bad grammar; it was riddled with bad motives. The motion is a genuinely scary insight into what the Greens would do if they ever got power.