The Rationalist Society of Australia (RSA) has raised concerns with the Royal Australian Navy that its requirement for secular wellbeing support roles to demonstrate spirituality could unfairly block non-religious and non-spiritual applicants.

In a letter to Navy Headquarters, the RSA’s Executive Director Si Gladman has sought an explanation from Navy on its understanding of the word “spirituality” and what it meant to be “spiritual”.

The RSA has also asked for information about Navy’s merit-based measures to assess an applicant’s spirituality.

Last month, the RSA revealed that applicants for Wellbeing Officer roles – that provide frontline pastoral care – must have a “strong spiritual connection” and demonstrate how their spirituality informs their life.

“We are concerned that the Navy’s requirements could unfairly prevent otherwise well-qualified and well-experienced secular pastoral carers, wellbeing support workers, from applying,” he said.

“Our Navy personnel should have access to the best frontline wellbeing support possible that taxpayers’ money could provide. It would be deeply troubling if spirituality requirements deterred non-religious and non-spiritual applicants, while advantaging religious applicants.”

Mr Gladman also noted that the Australian Constitution prohibited the use of religious criteria when hiring for Commonwealth government positions.

Navy introduced the secular roles – originally known as Maritime Spiritual Wellbeing Officers (MSWOs) – to its religious-based chaplaincy branch in 2020 to provide suitable frontline support for its majority non-religious workforce.

In response to similar concerns in 2022, then Deputy Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Chris Smith, told the RSA that he would have his team “refine the MSWO narrative to clarify references to ‘spirituality’ and ‘spiritual connection’.”

In the letter, Mr Gladman asked Navy to clarify whether this direction from 2022 has been implemented and reflected in the current job advertisement.

The Rationalist Society of Australia is actively lobbying and advocating for secular reform of the Defence Force. See the latest 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.

Image: Department of Defence/Commonwealth of Australia

Letter to Navy Headquarters, 31 July 2024

Dear Navy Headquarters,

I’m writing on behalf of the Rationalist Society of Australia – Australia’s oldest freethought group promoting reason, secularism and evidence-based policy – in regards to selection criteria for the secular Wellbeing Officer roles in Navy.

The roles were established in 2020 to provide a non-religious pastoral care capability that would be different from the existing religious chaplaincy capability, filling a gap not able to be served by the existing capability.

We have discovered that, in the current job advertisement on the Australian Defence Force Careers website, the Navy requires applicants to have a “strong spiritual connection” and demonstrate how their spirituality informs their life.

The advertisement asks that applicants for the position of Wellbeing Officer:

• “Articulate and illustrate (with examples) how they attend to and nurture their own spirituality.”
• “Articulate how their spirituality informs their own life, such as through choices and values.”
• “Articulate and illustrate any experience with regards to a well-rounded world view of spirituality and religion, such as exposure to diverse world views, beliefs or cultures.”

We are concerned that the Navy’s requirements could unfairly prevent otherwise well-qualified and well-experienced secular pastoral carers, wellbeing support workers, from applying.

We also note that the Australian Constitution prohibits the use of religious criteria when hiring for Commonwealth government positions.

Our Navy personnel should have access to the best frontline wellbeing support possible that taxpayers’ money could provide. It would be deeply troubling if spirituality requirements deterred non-religious and non-spiritual applicants, while advantaging religious applicants.

In introducing the new roles – originally known as Maritime Spiritual Wellbeing Officers (MSWOs) – in 2020, the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal recognised there was a very high proportion of personnel who were not religious and also noted Navy’s own evidence to the Tribunal that those personnel were not properly served by religiously-based chaplains.

In 2022, we raised concerns with then Deputy Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Chris Smith, about religious credentials being listed in the job requirements for the secular roles. In part of his response, he said he would have his team “refine the MSWO narrative to clarify references to ‘spirituality’ and ‘spiritual connection’.”

Can you clarify for us whether Navy has implemented this direction and whether it has been reflected in the current job advertisement?

Can you explain Navy’s understanding of the word ‘spirituality’ and what it is to be ‘spiritual’?

Can you explain what merit-based measures Navy uses to assess an applicant’s spirituality?

The soon-to-be-released Defence Census figures for religious affiliation are expected to show that the proportion of military personnel who identify as non-religious in the permanent force has now surpassed 60 per cent. 

Some of these non-religious people would, no doubt, profess a kind of spirituality – such as a feeling of awe when they are walking in nature or looking at the stars. But many would not.

As social researcher Neil Francis has shown in his Religiosity in Australia series, published by the Rationalist Society of Australia, the number of Australians identifying as “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR) has grown in recent times. A number of studies between 2009-2017 have found the percentage of Australians identifying as SBNR ranging from as low as 8 per cent to as high as 14 per cent. In 2018, an Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) study showed an even higher proportion of SBNRs at 24 per cent.

While Francis said there was a lack of clarity around the expression “spiritual but not religious” – as it includes all kinds of things, such as personal deities, contemplative practice, naturalistic forms of transcendence – what is certain is that these people are not religious.

Francis also provided survey data that showed that significant numbers of religious people say they have a religion but are not spiritual. Only among minor Christian denominations was there a majority (65 per cent) whose affiliation with religion included being spiritual.

We would appreciate Navy addressing the questions we have raised.

Warm regards,

Si Gladman

Executive Director,

Rationalist Society of Australia