The Rationalist Society of Australia is seeking answers from the federal government on why the charities of damaging religious cults are allowed to continue benefiting from their charitable status of ‘advancing religion’.
In a letter to the assistant minister for charities, Dr Andrew Leigh, earlier this month, the RSA noted that many of the high-demand religious cults whose coercive and abusive practices have been highlighted in the mainstream media also operate charities.
With ‘advancement of religion’ being a charitable purpose in and of itself, such charities are assumed to be providing a positive benefit to the community.
RSA Executive Director Si Gladman told Dr Leigh that all organistions with tax-exempt status should have to demonstrate that their activities have a public benefit.
“We believe – and we are sure most Australians agree – that charity status should be afforded to all organisations that conduct genuine charitable works for the public benefit and in an accountable manner, regardless of whether that organisation is religious,” he said.
“Will the Albanese government listen to the survivors of cults and consider reforms to the charities system to ensure that charities, including religious ones, demonstrate their work is in the public benefit?”
Mr Gladman told Dr Leigh that the RSA had recently asked all state and territory attorneys-general to prioritise expanding coercive control laws to also apply to religious cults.
Survivors of religious cults have been speaking out in the mainstream media, sharing their stories of coercive, harmful and abusive practices in cult groups such as the Exclusive Brethren, Geelong Revival Centre, Shincheonji Church, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Mr Gladman also asked Dr Leigh when the Albanese government would provide a formal response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations regarding the ‘Basic Religious Charity’ (BRC) category.
In July, as part of its inquiry into philanthropy, the Productivity Commission recommended the removal of the BRC category in order to “enhance regulatory consistency and public transparency”. The government has not yet provided its response to all of the recommendations, although it quickly backed the call of private schools to reject any changes to Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) for school building funds – which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest private schools.
Dr Leigh has not responded to previous correspondence from the RSA asking that the federal government remove ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose in the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Act 2012.
The RSA told Dr Leigh that the current arrangement, in providing special treatment to religious worldviews above all other worldviews, unjustifiably discriminated against non-religious people on the grounds of belief. It also argued that the rapid decline of religious affiliation – with ‘no religion’ set to overtake Christianity at the 2026 Census – showed the government sponsorship of “advancing” religion was at odds with the will of the people.
The Rationalist Society of Australia is actively advocating for reform of the charities sector. Follow our campaign updates here.
If you want to support our work, please make a donation or become a member.
Si Gladman is Executive Director of the Rationalist Society of Australia. He also hosts ‘The Secular Agenda’ podcast.
Letter to Assistant Minister for Charities, Dr Leigh, 21 December 2024
Dear Dr Leigh,
We have been alarmed to see a stream of articles in Australia’s mainstream media about the immense damage being caused to individuals and families by religious cults and high-demand religious groups.
Numerous survivors of cultish groups such as the Exclusive Brethren, Geelong Revival Centre, Shincheonji Church, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are bravely speaking out about the coercive practices and harm they have been subjected to.
The survivors have detailed a long list of coercive, harmful and abusive practices. We pointed these out to Australian state and territory attorneys-general in a letter this month calling for coercive control laws to address cults.
Such practices detailed in recent media articles include: families being torn apart by policies of “separation”, excommunication and shunning; restrictions on women, including what roles they can work in (if even allowed to work), how they dress, when they are to marry, and how to lead their lives; prohibitions on young people pursuing tertiary education; and violent punishment and sexual abuse. Read about our letter to the attorneys-general here.
Disturbingly, such high-demand cults have charities that enjoy many benefits due to the assumption of ‘advancement of religion’ being a charitable purpose in and of itself, and a positive thing for the community.
Also, the charities of cults that have ‘Basic Religious Charity’ (BRC) status are avoiding public accountability as they are not subjected to the financial reporting requirements and governance standards that apply to all other charities, including many religious charities. As you know, the Productivity Commission has recommended that removal of these “unjustified reporting exemptions” to governance and reporting standards would serve to enhance “public transparency and accountability” in the charities system.
We believe – and we are sure most Australians agree – that charity status should be afforded to all organisations that conduct genuine charitable works for the public benefit and in an accountable manner, regardless of whether that organisation is religious.
All organisations that enjoy tax-exempt status should be obliged to demonstrate their activities are in the public benefit. Many religious charities do good works and support many Australians in need. Under a new ‘public benefit test’, these charities would continue to attract charitable status under heads of charity other than ‘advancement of religion’ – such as advancing social or public welfare.
Dr Leigh, will the Albanese government listen to the survivors of cults and consider reforms to the charities system to ensure that charities, including religious ones, demonstrate their work is in the public benefit?
When will the government deliver its response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations?
We look forward to hearing from you. We have been disappointed not to have received responses to our previous correspondence on these issues.
Regards,
Si Gladman
Executive Director,
Rationalist Society of Australia