Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The politics of religion

By Max Wallace - posted Friday, 4 June 2010


Motivated by dreadful personal stories from former members of Scientology, Senator Xenophon has drafted the Tax Laws (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010. The Economics Committee of the Senate is taking submissions from the public on this bill.

The central idea of the bill seems to be to replicate the British Charities Commission public benefit test.

This test determined that Scientology was not eligible for tax-exempt status. The Commission argued Scientology's central practice of “auditing”, where an operative encourages a member to pour out all the details of their life while being attached to a device like a lie detector was not a “worship” ritual - a central characteristic of religion. Second, there was significant public disquiet about Scientology in Britain.

Advertisement

The fact this bill and Senate inquiry is happening at all could only be explained by internal machinations between the various political parties represented in the Australian Senate. The bill and its inquiry must be a trade-off for some benefit the government is receiving from the independent and Greens members.

Neither the Labor Government nor the Liberal-National Coalition (with some dissenters) would want a bill like this to proceed and become law because it is a potential Pandora’s box. It threatens to throw into question the legitimacy of the tax-exempt status of other religions in Australia, for, in attempting to set additional criteria for tax-exempt status, it is impossible to have those criteria apply to only one religion. By extension, the bill opens a window into how the Australian political system itself is controlled by political parties who surrender to religion in order to ensure their re-election. More of this below.

The Explanatory Memorandum to Senator Xenophon’s bill glosses over the facts of the tax-exempt status of religion which are:

  • All religions that have a supernatural belief, a congregation, with rituals, a building, paying stipends to a minister or someone equivalent, are eligible for tax-exempt status in Australia. Other organisations that “advance religion” in comparable ways are also eligible, such as organisations that produce and sell Bibles.
     
  • All religions are legally charities. To “advance religion” has been deemed to be of public benefit since the 17th century. The Tax Office makes a determination when a religion applies for tax-exempt status as to whether it meets the definition of religion. That definition came from the 1983 High Court case which involved Scientology itself: Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic) 1983.
     
  • Briefly, the Court held that religion is any belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle and canons of conduct (rituals) that give effect to that belief. Senator Xenophon’s bill aims to narrow these yawning goalposts to bring in a public benefit test, presumably, as noted, along British lines.

In his Explanatory Memorandum Senator Xenophon says a Public Benefit test would include the following principles:

  • there must be an identifiable benefit arising from the aims and activities of the entity;
  • the benefit must be balanced against any detriment or harm; and
  • the benefit must be to the public or a significant section of the public, and not merely to individuals with a material connection to the entity.
Advertisement

I disagree with this kind of language completely. It is not the role of the Commonwealth of Australia to decide whether religion is a public benefit to citizens. That idea is rooted in 17th century thinking that is no longer appropriate in the 21st century.

Religion is a private matter for citizens not a public matter for the Commonwealth. Were there a constitutional separation of church and state in Australia and Britain one would argue that as a matter of logic there should not be tax exemption for religion at all.

Equally, it should be the case that atheist, humanist, rationalist and related organisations should not be eligible for tax-exempt status under the other main justifications for this status: the advancement of education and the advancement of science.

Government should be policy neutral between religion and non-belief. At the same time, the genuinely charitable organisations that religions run could continue to have tax-exempt status on the grounds that relief of poverty is a public benefit, subject to full disclosure of their income and expenditure in the same way that secular charities must justify their activities. Genuinely educational and scientific organisations could continue as before.

This is what the inquiry into Senator Xenophon’s bill should find, but it won’t, because, as argued above, Australian politics is controlled by the money that religious organisations are able to bring to the table at election time.

This fact of life was well explained by a former Labor candidate, Phil Robins, in his “The Family First Phenomenon” originally published in Australian Fabian News in 2005.

Robins pointed out that Family First, which originated in the Assemblies of God church, and also has links to Hillsong, is wealthy enough to stand candidates across Australia in federal and state elections in sufficient numbers to generate enough preferences to possibly determine the outcomes in swinging seats.

As if to prove Robins’ point, in the South Australian state election in March this year, some Labor candidates distributed how-to-vote cards to electors with the large caption “FAMILY FIRST” indicating a voter should preference Labor. Some Labor campaign workers wore “put your FAMILY FIRST” T-shirts when handing out the cards (see “Family First slams Labor’s dirty tricks”, The Australian, March 22, 2010.)

Combine that “passing off” hanky-panky with politicians’ fear of the moving feast of the Catholic vote and that’s enough to help turn Australia into what I call a “soft theocracy”: democracy compromised by fear of the religious vote, however small.

While the Secular Party came into existence in 2005 it does not have the millions that Family First are able to find from various sources to compete and act as a counterweight.

Given that is so, and while the Tax Office knows the tax exemptions for religion are ancient and ridiculous, and many politicians also know this, and as there’s no groundswell of public opinion as yet against these exemptions, it is all but impossible not to kowtow to the church parties for preferences.

That is why Senator Xenophon’s bill will fail to get the support it needs. There is also the point that his very worthy attempt to speak to the allegations of former members of the Scientology about “coerced abortions, false imprisonment, breaches of occupational health and safety laws, stalking, harassment and extortion” could be equally applied to other religious organisations as well.

That surely is enough to kill it.

It would be a huge double standard not to apply the law equally. Why should institutions within mainstream religious organisations continue to have tax-exempt status when there are very many proven instances of child rape and cover-ups within their walls?

Senator Xenophon’s valiant attempt to do something about Scientology in particular is commendable. While the major parties have humoured him thus far, their self-interest and their indifference to the rights of those injured physically, psychologically and financially by religion will unfortunately continue for the foreseeable future. Preference votes are more important than human rights, including the human rights of abused children. Isn’t this what politics is all about?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

74 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Max Wallace is vice-president of the Rationalists Assn of NSW and a council member of the New Zealand Assn of Rationalists and Humanists.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Max Wallace

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 74 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy