The Rationalist Society of Australia has asked the minister responsible for the charities sector to implement the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to remove Basic Religious Charities (BRCs) in order to restore public confidence in the nation’s charities system.

In a letter to Andrew Leigh (see letter below), the RSA’s Executive Director Si Gladman expressed support for the Commission’s finding that enacting the reform would help deliver a “more transparent and consistent approach to regulating charities”.

Earlier this month, the Productivity Commission, in its final report on philanthropy, said there was no justification for retaining BRCs and their related exemptions in the charities system. Religious groups with BRC status are exempt from financial transparency obligations and governance standards that apply to other religious groups and all other charities.

In the letter to Dr Leigh (pictured), the RSA also called for the Albanese government to remove ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose in the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Act 2012.

While the Productivity Commission did not go as far as recommending removal of ‘advancement of religion’, Mr Gladman said 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.

“If the Albanese government opted not to remove ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose, then, at the very least, it should introduce a new charitable purpose for advancing non-religious worldviews (encompassing atheism, humanism, rationalism and similar secular beliefs) so as to remove discrimination,” he wrote.

Mr Gladman also argued that it was untenable to continue privileging religion given the dramatic decline in religious affiliation in Australia.

“At the next Census in 2026, the proportion of Australians identifying as not religious will surpass those identifying as Christians, and could reach as high as 50 per cent of the population. With Australians walking away from religion, on what grounds can the government continue to recognise its ‘advancement’ as being a charitable thing?”

The Rationalist Society of Australia is actively campaigning 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 Andrew Leigh, 30 July 2024

Dear Dr Leigh,

I’m writing on behalf of the Rationalist Society of Australia in regards to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations for its inquiry into philanthropy, as outlined in the Future foundations of giving report.

The recommendations in regards to religious charities represent a positive step forward in providing greater transparency, accountability, and fairness, to Australia’s charities system. If supported by the Albanese government, these recommendations would help restore much-needed public confidence in the system.

While we support the Productivity Commission’s recommendations to remove Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status for school building funds and religious activities in government schools, we wish to focus here on two other issues that we raised as part of the Commission’s inquiry into philanthropy.

Basic Religious Charities

We urge the Albanese government to support the Commission’s recommendation in relation to Basic Religious Charities (BRCs) and remove the category from the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Act 2012 (Cth).  

We agree with the Commission’s finding that there was no justification for retaining BRCs in the charities system and that removing the category and associated exemptions would help to deliver a “more transparent and consistent approach to regulating charities”.

As we wrote in a letter to you last year  – and as we told the Commission in our first submission – the lack of transparency around religious charities is at odds with community expectations and undermines public trust in the charities systems. We also note that the ACNC, in its submission, recognised that special exemptions given to BRCs may be reducing public trust and confidence in the charities system.

We fully agree with the Productivity Commission’s observation that:

“These changes are reasonable, proportionate and necessary given community expectations around the transparency and accountability of all charities, and the benefits associated with the collection and publication of financial information of a significant proportion of the charitable sector.”

Enacting this reform would deliver fairness for all charities. BRCs, as the Commission argued, should be subject to the same ACNC governance standards and financial reporting requirements as other charities, including other religious charities that do not operate with BRC status.

‘Advancement of religion’

We urge the Albanese government to remove ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose in the Charities Act 2012 (Cth).

While the Commission did not recommend changes in regards to the ‘advancement of religion’, we believe it is untenable for the federal government to continue to privilege religion in this way. In providing special treatment to religious worldviews above all other worldviews, including non-religious and secular worldviews, the current arrangements unjustifiably discriminate against non-religious people on the grounds of belief.

Clearly, these arrangements prevent non-religious Australians having the equal opportunity to participate in the charities sector. Non-religious community groups – such as atheists, humanists, and rationalists – are excluded from enjoying the same treatment in regards to advancing and promoting their particular worldviews as a charitable purpose. 

The rapid decline of religious affiliation suggests that the government’s support for “advancing” religion is at odds with the will of the people. At the next Census in 2026, the proportion of Australians identifying as not religious will surpass those identifying as Christians, and could reach as high as 50 per cent of the population. With Australians walking away from religion, on what grounds can the government continue to recognise its “advancement” as being a charitable thing?

Charity status should be afforded to all organisations that conduct genuine charitable works for the public benefit in an accountable manner, regardless of whether that organisation is religious. Even if the “advancement of religion” head of charity were removed, a public benefit test would ensure that religious charities that do genuine work in the public benefit – of which there would be many – would continue to qualify for charity status under another head of charity.

If the Albanese government opted not to remove “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose, then, at the very least, it should introduce a new charitable purpose for advancing non-religious worldviews (encompassing atheism, humanism, rationalism and similar secular beliefs) so as to remove discrimination.

We would be happy to discuss these issues with you further. We urge you to consult with representatives from the vibrant non-religious, ex-religious and pro-secular communities in regards to much-needed reform of the charities sector.

Regards,

Si Gladman

Executive Director,

Rationalist Society of Australia