The Rationalist Society of Australia has sought answers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on why it has decided to again use the biased Census religion question in the knowledge that it produces flawed data.

In a letter to Chief Statistician David Gruen (pictured) yesterday, RSA Executive Director Si Gladman expressed disappointment that the ABS had ignored the overwhelming call from the public for change to the question.

Mr Gladman said the decision did immense reputational damage to the ABS and severely undermined public trust in the agency.

He pointed out that, during a two-year public consultation process, the ABS acknowledged the public’s concern that the question “assumes you have a religion” and, therefore, had proposed to change the question to “support more accurate data collection”.

“Despite having had four years since the previous Census to fix the long-standing problems with the religion question, the ABS has instead opted to again use a question that will deliver flawed religious affiliation data that cannot be relied upon by any users at government level or in the community,” wrote Mr Gladman (see letter below).

“How can Australian taxpayers have confidence in the ABS when it has knowingly adopted a Census question that produces flawed data?”

“On what other Census topics would the ABS accept the use of fundamentally flawed questions?”

On Monday, the ABS announced it would again ask respondents, “What is the person’s religion?” After seeking feedback from the public, the ABS, in 2023, proposed to change the question to a yes-no question, “Do you have a religion?”, and then providing a space for religious people to write their affiliation.

The ABS’ decision follows a lobbying effort in 2024 by the Catholic Church calling for the Albanese government to intervene in the ABS process to block any changes to the religion question. According to Catholic media, bishops wrote directly to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Bishops argued that changing the question would create a bias in favour of ‘no religion’. Conservative politicians also backed their calls, with former Prime Minister John Howard even labelling the public service “anti religious” for considering a change to the religion question.

The ABS also ignored the result of its two-year public consultation process which called for change to the question. Of 172 responses published on the ABS website, 74 specifically related to the proposed change to the religion question, with the vast majority – 63 – supportive of the change and eight partly supportive. Even the Victorian Premier’s own department identified the “assumption of religiosity” as a problem in the existing question.

In its statement on Monday, the ABS said it had opted for having comparable data with previous censuses.

“In 2024, the ABS continued to consult with religious and secular organisations on the data needs that would be met or impacted if the ABS changed the religious affiliation question for the 2026 Census,” the statement said.

“Feedback from the additional consultation identified strong benefits for comparability of the data that were not as strongly identified during earlier consultations.

“This decision is primarily driven by the inability of the ABS to adequately support data users who need to compare religious affiliation data from the 2026 Census with previous Censuses.” 

In 2021, the RSA joined with a number of freethought and secular organisations for the Census – Not Religious? campaign that encouraged Australians to accurately complete the Census question and mark ‘no religion’ if they were no longer religious.

In a statement on Monday, Michael Dove, the spokesperson for that campaign, said the ABS had “sacrificed accuracy in seeking to placate the powerful Catholic Church-led resistance to changing the question”.

Mr Gladman told Dr Gruen that, because of the ABS’ failure to fix the question, public discontent about the biased nature of the religion question would dominate another Census cycle.

“[It] will require yet another grassroots campaign by community organisations to alert the wider public to the problems with the religion question and to educate members of the public on how they can help to more accurately complete the Census,” he wrote.

The RSA has this week submitted a number of freedom of information requests with the ABS.

See all of the RSA’s reporting about the Census question 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.

Image: Australian Bureau of Statistics

RSA letter to the Chief Statistician, 19 February 2025

Dear Dr Gruen,

I’m writing on behalf of the Rationalist Society of Australia (RSA), which is Australia’s oldest freethought organisation promoting reason, secularism and evidence-based policy.

We are deeply disappointed by the decision of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to decide against changing the religion question for the upcoming 2026 Census in the knowledge that the result will produce flawed data.

Despite having had four years since the previous Census to fix the long-standing problems with the religion question, the ABS has instead opted to again use a question that will deliver flawed religious affiliation data that cannot be relied upon by any users at government level or in the community.

The decision to continue with the biased question – that presumes all respondents have a religion – does immense reputational damage to the ABS, severely undermines the public trust in the agency, and will, as a matter of course, deliver discredited Census results.

This is particularly disappointing given the overwhelming public feedback, obtained by the ABS during its consultation process, that called for change to the question in order to remove the bias.

We note that, when the ABS proposed a reformulated question during 2023, it acknowledged on its website:

• the public consultation raised the problem that “the way the question is currently asked assumes you have a religion”;
• that the design change was being done to “support more accurate data collection”.

Australian taxpayers have an expectation that the ABS will adopt best practices in designing Census questions in an effort to achieve the most accurate and meaningful data possible.

Your own website says that the ABS is:

“…Australia’s national statistical agency and an official source of independent, reliable information. We tell the real story of Australia, its economy and its people by bringing life and meaning to numbers.”

But the religion question to be used at the 2026 Census will neither “tell the real story of Australia and its people” nor produce data that can be relied upon. Instead, the 2026 religion result will again distort the reality of religious affiliation, inflating the importance of religion to Australians.

Any high school mathematics student or anyone with a basic understanding of questionnaire design knows that the religion question is an assumption-based leading question, resulting in acquiescence bias. 

Now, due to the decision of the ABS, another Census cycle will be dominated by public discontent about the biased nature of the religion question and will require yet another grassroots campaign by community organisations to alert the wider public to the problems with the religion question and to educate members of the public on how they can help to more accurately complete the Census.

We would appreciate it if you could answer the following:

Is it the ABS’ job to collect accurate data?

Does the ABS still accept that the religion question adopted for the 2026 Census will not support accurate data collection?

How can Australian taxpayers have confidence in the ABS when it has knowingly adopted a Census question that produces flawed data?

Why has the ABS decided to ignore best practice in questionnaire design and the overwhelming public sentiment from its public consultation process and kept the biased religion question?

On what other Census topics would the ABS accept the use of fundamentally flawed questions?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Si Gladman

Executive Director,

Rationalist Society of Australia