Oh, to live in the magical world of the modern economist. A place where people will feed the poor, care for sick animals, protect the environment, and make healthier choices about their lives because… well, maybe because the government will subsidise advertising campaigns telling them to? At least, that’s the impression I gathered reading the Productivity Commission’s new report, ‘Future foundations for giving’.
The report has come under fire from the religious sector due to a number of suggested reforms, including the removal of deductible gift recipient (DGR) status for school building funds and religious and ethics education in government schools. The report also proposes the abolition of the Basic Religious Charities (BRC) designation, which helps ensure religious bodies maintain control and oversight of their own charities.
On the positive side, the report also suggests broadening access to DGR status to a number of charities that currently don’t qualify, including ‘those focused on advocacy and prevention, a wide range of animal welfare charities and many charities run solely by volunteers’. But it also explicitly rules out extending DGR status to charities undertaking activities for advancing religion – which currently aren’t able to receive tax deductable donations (Full disclosure: Our generous donors to Eureka Street would be aware that we don’t currently qualify for DGR status ourselves).
The Government has already ruled out acting on the more contentious proposal related to school building funds. As the NCEC noted in its response to the report, currently Catholic school families fund nearly 90 per cent of their school buildings and maintenance costs – raising $1.96 billion in 2022 alone. It’s hard to see many of those championing these reforms being amenable to more government funding being sent to non-government schools, but the Productivity Commission report itself noted that something like that would have been required if the reforms were to pass.
The abolition of Basic Religious Charities has yet to be ruled out, but this also seems problematic. As Catholic Bishops Conference President Archbishop Timothy Costelloe noted in his response to the report, there are potential Constitutional barriers to any reforms that would allow the government to interfere with religious bodies. Additionally, given most BRCs (e.g. Catholic parishes or religious institutes) don’t currently qualify for DGR status and so aren’t really costing the government any money, the rationale for the change seems weak.
Speaking of that, while the Productivity Commission has admitted that more charities should qualify for DGR status, it says religious bodies should continue to be excluded. The rationale for denying DGR status to activities with the sole purpose of advancing religion is that, while ‘religious practice does provide benefits to the community, it is unlikely to be unsupplied in a way that would warrant additional support via the DGR system’. There’s no evidence provided for this assertion, and one might point to the drastic decline in numbers of priests and religious, and in church attendance overall, as very strong evidence to the contrary.
But that seems to be the point. These decisions don’t really seem to be about responding to evidence, but about ideology. They are based on a conception of state and church as separate, exclusive entities, which somehow should never overlap. This denies not only the important role that churches play in developing people’s sense of charity and mission, but also the significant evidence of the value of churches across society both historically and today. Any argument in favour of sporting groups, or arts organisations, receiving DGR status should hold as strongly for religious organisations – and arguably, based on evidence, even more so.
'The largest 10 per cent of charities now receive 94 per cent of all donations. Meanwhile, the financial pressures on charities are only getting worse, as Australians struggle with increasing costs of living. Similarly, there has been a significant decline in volunteering across the sector, as more people struggle to find space between other commitments.'
Consider the history of religious Australians contributing positively to society. There are hundreds of schools across Australia that wouldn’t exist if not for the generations of religious who staffed them, with little pay or training, or the inspiring leaders like St Mary MacKillop who found funding for them in the first place. There are dozens of hospitals and social ministries with similar origin stories, made possible by the contributions and support of vibrant religious communities and the heroic efforts of individuals like Fr Bob Maguire. None of these people or works appeared out of nowhere. They were formed and nurtured in religious families and religious schools, and encouraged and supported by religious communities.
The Productivity Commission’s report notes that while the total amount of money being donated has increased over recent decades, the proportion of the population actually making donations has declined. One effect of the increase in ‘big money’ donors is that funds are now far more concentrated than ever before – the largest 10 per cent of charities now receive 94 per cent of all donations. Meanwhile, the financial pressures on charities are only getting worse, as Australians struggle with increasing costs of living. Similarly, there has been a significant decline in volunteering across the sector, as more people struggle to find space between other commitments.
It would be simplistic to say the decline in religious participation is entirely to blame for the decline in charitable giving and volunteering, but it would also be wrong to deny that it’s part of the picture. If religion isn’t going to be what nurtures people’s sense of charity, then what is? What else is going to provide the ideas and energy for new initiatives, the community and generosity to support them, and form the inspiring individuals to lead them? There seem few strong alternatives at the moment – unless you think we should be placing all our trust in the billionaire class.
If the concern is to promote generosity and help sustain our charitable sector, then why aren’t we looking at supporting those places where charity is actually nurtured? The idea that we can still have all the good that charities have brought to society without supporting those same religious communities that gave birth to those charities in the first place… well, that’s magical thinking.
Michael McVeigh is Head of Publishing and Digital Content at Jesuit Communications, publishers of Eureka Street.