"The church denied coordinating a campaign in support of the Coalition. Yeah - right?"

Nationally, the 2025 federal campaign was marked by controversy over members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church volunteering for Coalition campaigns. The ABC reported that there were unusually large numbers of volunteers supporting Coalition candidates at pre-poll booths in selected seats, and that leaked or circulated messages included instructions about how members should respond if asked about their religious affiliation. The church denied coordinating a campaign in support of the Coalition. Yeah - right?

The Centre for Public Integrity also reported concerns about the political activity of Plymouth Brethren members during the campaign, including questions about whether the church’s charitable status could be affected if organised party-political involvement were proven.

There is an important distinction here. Religious people have every right to take part in politics. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and everyone else are entitled to volunteer, donate, campaign, hand out material, join parties and argue for causes. That is democracy.

The concern is not religious participation.

The concern is opacity, coordination, and scale.

If a church, charity, corporate network, union network, business lobby, or other organised body becomes a de facto campaign arm for a party or candidate, voters are entitled to know what is happening. They are entitled to know who is really behind the campaign activity they are seeing. They are entitled to know whether political influence is being exercised openly or through structures that are harder to scrutinise.

That question is especially relevant when a campaign appears unusually well-resourced on the ground.

Gilmore Shows Why Election Campaign Rules Need to Change