Markets 
Updated ,first published
Elders of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church and right-wing lobby group Advance face being compulsorily summonsed before federal parliament to answer for their actions at the last election, if they will not appear voluntarily.
Labor MP Jerome Laxale, the chairman of the parliamentary committee investigating the conduct of the election, said in a statement that both groups had declined to appear. He would invite both again, but if they resisted, the committee would issue a summons.
A summons is a serious and unusual step for a parliamentary committee to take, and if ignored can lead to charges of contempt of parliament, or penalties including a formal reprimand, a fine, or in extreme cases, imprisonment.
Laxale’s statement was met with a strong rebuke by Liberal senator Richard Colbeck, the deputy chairman of the committee, who said it was a “punitive and political misuse of the committee” and saying the parties had not refused to appear.
In his statement, issued on Thursday morning, Laxale said, “The committee acknowledges that this is an extraordinary step, but one it believes necessary”.
Advance and the Brethren church had already “declined to appear at previous hearings in November 2025, and March and May 2026”.
“Given multiple attempts have been made to have these witnesses appear … the committee has also resolved to issue a summons to compel their attendance if witnesses continue to decline these invitations.”
The church has consistently denied it had anything to do with the mass movement of its members in the weeks leading up to the election, saying they were all individually moved to support the campaign for then-opposition leader Peter Dutton.
But Laxale’s statement said more than 75 published submissions to the committee inquiry had mentioned the church, and had noted their presence in about 80 different suburbs in federal electorates across Australia.
“Given the volume of submissions the committee has received, and the level of community concern about their involvement in the electoral process, it is not just in the committee’s interest, but Australia’s interest, to understand the involvement of both of these third parties in the 2025 federal election and their influence on the electoral process,” Laxale said.
The Brethren was not registered as a significant third party in the campaign.
Colbeck said there had not been a pattern of the lobby group Advance refusing to appear to give evidence at the committee, and he said of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church: “every discussion with them has been that they want to appear”.
“There is nothing to see here … The decision by any committee to subpoena a witness is a serious one and used where there is an indication of unwillingness or refusal to appear by a witness. It is not a political plaything,” Colbeck’s statement said.
Plymouth Brethren Christian Church director and spokesman Lloyd Grimshaw said in response to questions that he had written a submission to the committee, and had “confirmed in writing to them, on three occasions no less, that I am happy to attend and answer questions about how the church did not campaign for, nor support, any political parties” at the last election.
“There has only been one date they nominated and, unfortunately, I couldn’t make it work due to business commitments,” Grimshaw said. “A subsequent delay ensued in organising a new date, which I assume was because the chair of the committee [Laxale] was in North America at the World Cup.
“I would welcome a future hearing as an opportunity to set the record straight and present accurate information about our church directly to the committee.”
Brethren members declared donations of $700,000 to lobby group Advance, which conducted an extensive advertising campaign on behalf of the Coalition at the election.
Advance acted as the highest-spending third-party campaigner at the election, raising more than $13 million. It spent heavily on social media and real-world advertising against the Greens and Labor, describing the government as “weak, woke, sending us broke”.
In 2018, two executives of the Retail Food Group challenged a joint parliamentary committee summons in the High Court, saying the committee lacked the constitutional power to compel witnesses. The High Court ruled against them and the executives were forced to appear.
Advance has been approached for comment.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
Michael Bachelard is a senior writer and former deputy editor and investigations editor of The Age. He has worked in Canberra, Melbourne and Jakarta, has written two books and won multiple awards for journalism, including the Gold Walkley.Connect via X or email.From our partners
Read the full article here
