The Rationalist Society of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) whether it weighed the human rights impact in deciding not to accurately count the nation’s non-religious population in the next Census.

In a letter to the head of the ABS, Dr David Gruen (pictured), the RSA argued that the continued use of a biased religious affiliation question meant that the Census question would be coercive and fail to accurately count non-religious people.

Despite having received overwhelming public feedback calling for change, and having itself previously proposed changing the question’s wording to “support more accurate data collection”, the ABS decided to keep the biased religion question after religious organisations expressed a “strong desire” to have comparable data with previous censuses.

The 2026 Census will ask respondents, ‘What is your religion?’ The assumption-based leading question will again inflate the figure for religious affiliation, making it impossible for policy-makers, researchers and the wider community to access accurate Census data.

RSA Executive Director Si Gladman told Dr Gruen that the framing of the Census question was inconsistent with international human rights provisions that treat religion and belief equally and that prohibit coercion that would impair a person’s “freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”.

“The wording of the question is coercive in that, as a default, it assumes all people responding to the question have a religious affiliation,” wrote Mr Gladman.

“As such, the question denies Australians the right to freely and fairly indicate whether they have, or do not have, a religious affiliation. It interferes with each individual’s right to accurately record, for governmental purposes, a religion or belief of their choice.”

Mr Gladman told Dr Gruen that the ABS, in placating the desires of religious groups to have comparable data, appeared to have ignored the many data users who need accurate religious affiliation data.

He pointed to elected representatives in parliaments and local governments across the country as data users who need accurate information to inform their decision-making and policy-making, including in areas of human rights.

“[We] have reported on many instances in parliaments and local councils in recent years where elected representatives have sought to make a case for replacing exclusionary Christian acts of worship in formal proceedings and have pointed to ABS data to highlight the growth in their communities identifying as not religious,” he said.

“As a number of councillors have argued – and councils have accepted – the imposition of Christian acts of worship breaches state human rights and anti-discrimination laws. Yet, none of these elected representatives can access accurate data on religious affiliation from the ABS.”

Mr Gladman asked Dr Gruen whether the ABS had sought legal advice on whether the formulation of the religion question met Australia’s international human rights commitments.

This year, the RSA intends to raise the issue of the Census religion question as an example of unfair and discriminatory government treatment of non-religious Australians in a submission to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review (Fourth Cycle) into Australia’s human rights.

In February, Mr Gladman said the ABS’ decision to keep the biased question did immense reputational damage to the ABS and severely undermined public trust in the agency.

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 Dr Gruen, 28 March 2025

Dear Dr Gruen,

I’m writing on behalf of the Rationalist Society of Australia in regards to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ decision to adopt, for the 2026 Census, a discriminatory religion question that assumes all respondents have a religion.

Under international human rights law – to which Australia is a signatory – religion and belief are treated equally. 

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) speaks of the right of each person to enjoy “freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice” and to not “be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”.

We believe that the religious affiliation question to be used by the ABS for the 2026 Census – ‘What is the person’s religion?’ – is inconsistent with these provisions.

The wording of the question is coercive in that, as a default, it assumes all people responding to the question have a religious affiliation. As such, the question denies Australians the right to freely and fairly indicate whether they have, or do not have, a religious affiliation. It interferes with each individual’s right to accurately record, for governmental purposes, a religion or belief of their choice.

We note that some commentary about the ABS’ decision to continue with the biased question has, indeed, pointed to the coercive nature of the question. American-based podcaster and blogger Hemant Mehta wrote of the ABS religion question: 

“It was coercive, in a way, because it implied you should have a religion and that not having one put you in a separate category.”

The assumption-based, leading religion question results in acquiescence bias, distorting the accuracy of the final counts. As a result, non-religious Australians are not accurately counted in the national Census.

We note that, in a statement in response to the controversy over the inclusion of gender and sexuality questions in the Census last year, the group Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) argued that:

“…all members of society…should be accurately counted and represented in Australia’s demography.” 

We agree.

Regarding Australia’s commitment to international human rights treaties, the ALHR added that:

“These [international] treaties underscore the fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination, obliging Australia to take measures to eliminate discrimination in all forms…”

In your recent letter to us (24 March 2025) you noted that religious organisations showed a “strong desire” to keep the question as it was. But the ABS appears to have ignored the many data users who need accurate religious affiliation data instead of flawed data that can be compared with past flawed data.

Many elected representatives in parliaments and local governments across Australia, as well as other policy-makers,need accurate data on religious affiliation so that they can make policies that meet the needs of the community and address human rights concerns. 

For example, at the Rationalist Society of Australia we have reported on many instances in parliaments and local councils in recent years where elected representatives have sought to make a case for replacing exclusionary Christian acts of worship in formal proceedings and have pointed to ABS data to highlight the growth in their communities identifying as not religious. As a number of councillors have argued – and councils have accepted – the imposition of Christian acts of worship breaches state human rights and anti-discrimination laws. Yet, none of these elected representatives can access accurate data on religious affiliation from the ABS.

This year, we will be raising the issue of the Census religion question as an example of unfair and discriminatory government treatment of non-religious Australians in a submission to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review (Fourth Cycle) into Australia’s human rights.

We would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions:

• Do you accept that the wording of the religion question is discriminatory against non-religious Australians in that it assumes they have a religion?
• Did the ABS consider the human rights impact of the religion question when it decided on re-using it for the 2026 Census? If so, can you please outline the substance of that consideration?
• Has the ABS sought legal advice on whether the formulation of the religion question meets Australia’s international human rights commitments? If not, will it seek legal advice?

We request a meeting with you to discuss our concerns about the human rights implications of the Census religion question.

Regards,

Si Gladman

Executive Director,

Rationalist Society of Australia