Hillsong’s senior pastor Brian Houston’s decision to step aside from Hillsong boards has raised questions about whether or not several of Hillsong’s entities might now be in breach of the rules governing charities in Australia.
As we reported last week Houston stepped aside as a director from 18 or 19 boards in the days after he was charged by NSW Police with concealing information on child sex abuse. Houston strongly denies the allegation.
Several hours after our story was published the Hillsong pastor emailed a “personal note” to his flock to “let you know” of the church’s corporate changes.
“I’ve made a decision to step aside from my role on the Hillsong church boards that oversee the governance of our operations,” Houston wrote. “I did this so that these boards can function to their fullest capacity during this season.
“This doesn’t change my role as global senior pastor. I thought it was important to let our church family know in the interests of transparency, and I wanted you to hear it from me directly.”
“In the interests of transparency”? “Hear it from me directly”? Houston stepped aside from Hillsong’s entities on August 17, 12 days after being charged by NSW Police. It took him more than a month to be “transparent” and then only after our story.
Houston has developed a corporate-religious code which gives a spiritual coating to the reality that in the secular world he and Hillsong are under pressure as never before. When he refers to the Hillsong board being at its fullest capacity “during this season” he is referring to the fact he is about to face a magistrates court on a charge of concealing information on child sex abuse which could see him imprisoned for up to five years.
Hillsong has also been the subject of damaging media coverage this year, led in the United States by Vanity Fair magazine. The megachurch has twice called in legal firms to help crisis manage issues which go to its morality.
But Crikey can reveal another serious real world consequence of Hillsong’s corporate reshuffle.
Removing Houston from Hillsong boards means that a number of its entities, all registered charities, appear to be in breach of their constitutions. It raises the question of whether or not they are also in breach of the rules governing charities.
Hillsong’s charities hand enormous power to the senior pastor, Houston, in keeping with Houston’s dominant role as its founder and its public face for the past 20 years. The charities’ constitutions embed Houston in a way that makes it almost impossible to dislodge him.
Six Hillsong charities formalise the senior pastor’s role to appoint and remove directors. They have identical constitutions which stipulate that the board of directors must include the senior pastor and that the senior pastor “shall serve as chairperson of directors”.
There is also a clause which exempts the senior pastor from rules which govern all other directors in terms of “appointment, terms and removal”.
In the case of three other Hillsong charities, the constitutions formalise that the senior pastor must be a director.
It means that as a result of Houston exiting from Hillsong boards there are now nine Hillsong charities which appear not to fulfil the terms of their constitutions lodged with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).
Under ACNC rules a constitution is important. It acts as a formal governing document and is needed for clarity on how a charity “makes decisions and consults members”. It also tells the regulator who and who is not fit and proper to run a charity.
One option may be that the ACNC insists that Houston resign as Hillsong’s senior pastor.
The ACNC told Crikey via email that by law it was not able to comment on the particular circumstances of a charity.
“Speaking generally, all registered charities have an obligation to notify the ACNC of any changes to their governing document. Changes must be made in accordance with the governing document. When notifying of a change, a charity must provide a copy of its updated governing document,” the ACNC said.
“Certain changes to a charity’s governing document — for example, changes to the purposes — may affect its eligibility to be registered as a charity.”
All churches are businesses, so none of them should be tax-exempt.
Absolutely and ipso facto, if there were no tax exemptions for malefic religious businesses like Hill Song one would hope, thank God (tongue in cheek), there would be less of them. A win-win all round.
The tax exemption is there as much of the money raised is already taxed, as it comes from members salaries.
One could apply that logic to my daily non-food purchases and GST. The money I (and everyone else) spends on these items is already taxed, as it comes from my salary.
Your return. 😉
Also I am reminded of the Uniting Church in the Southern Highlands District, then Province of Papua New Guinea when I worked there (SHP, not Uniting Church) in the late 1970s. It had 6 Trade Stores and no church. Religious organisations there, then had a similar boondoggle in operation.
With that reasoning we all shouldn’t have to pay GST because most of us have had our incomes taxed already.
Then we shouldn’t have to pay stamp duty because the money buying the house has already been taxed and the mortgagees are also paying tax on the money used to pay off their loan.
Pray tell what charitable works does Hillsong perform for the community? All I could find is “Description of the charities activities and outcomes: Activities that support advancing the Christian faith of Hillsong Church.”
Let us see – they help poor and distressed politicians, they ensure rescue missions from Covid infected cruise ships, they ensure that stooges (not the comical Three) are elected to Parliament and that some assume absolute power…
Perhaps Phil Gaeitjens could be asked to do an inquiry?
Inquiry to find what ? The predetermined, required result ?
Reporting before the Earth is consumed by climate change?
so long as we can wait until a Labor win to see the report
Well this is amusing. Crikey complain s – quite rightly – about the failure of Nine newspapers to acknowledge Crikey’s exclusive revelation that Brian Houston had stepped down from various boards connected to Hillsong.
Peter Fray might remember how 14 years ago he did exactly the same when he was editor of TheSundayAge. As a regular reporter for Crikey back then, I had broken a story about an ongoing conflict-of-interest scandal at the National Gallery of Victoria. I then fed research to a reporter at the SundayAge so it could follow up the story, concerned as I was that the Age stable had pretty much ignored the story to date. Fray then took the dubious liberty of stamping an exclusive on the Sunday Age story with zero acknowledgement to Crikey.
When I pointed out in Crikey that Fray’s exclusive boast was false, he sacked me from a weekly column I’d been writing for the SundayAge.
This was all documented by MediaWatch. Fray knows all about not giving credit where credit is due and then punishing the messenger.
Apparently he taught journalistic ethics at UTS – ’nuff sed.
From first hand experience, I know there are also senior academics in Media at UTS that are active Hill Song acolytes.
I wish that you had not told me that – if ever a field of activity needed to be sown with salt it is media & journlaism.
“… the fact he is about to face a magistrates court on a charge of concealing information on child sex abuse which could see him imprisoned for up to five years”. What I have difficulty with here is not the fact that this guy is being charged, but that for decades we’ve known about catholic bishops and cardinals doing exactly the same and getting away scot free! One of the most infamous even getting promoted to and protected by Rome.
Wasn’t his tickee in such a sad state he could not front up back in Australia for the RC but praise the Lord he was seen at Heathrow airport looking hale and hearty