The applicant argued that whether Pastafarianism was a religion or not was a matter of the belief of its adherents and not a matter for the Corporate Affairs Commission. The applicant rejected the Commission's view that Pastafarianism is a parody of established religions and their texts. The applicant also submitted that the proposed incorporated association fulfilled the legislative criteria of both a "charitable" and "educational" association.

The respondent submitted that Pastafarianism was a religious parody and its central text was a direct mockery of established religions. The respondent submitted that more than a belief system was required to demonstrate a religion. It was argued that the educational or charitable activities of the proposed association were incidental and did not constitute purposes for which the association was formed.

• the Pastafarian texts do not represent religious texts and Pastafarianism does not fulfil the objective considerations required to establish a religious purpose under the legislation;
• there is no evidence of systematic teaching and learning processes, nor of any structured, consistent, and broad-based charitable activities undertaken by the association that fulfil the legislative criteria regarding an educational or charitable association.

Administrative Review - Associations Incorporation Act 1985 - Review of a decision of the Commission to reject an application for incorporation - Eligibility for incorporation - Religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37

Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA) ss 18, 19, 20

Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Payroll Tax [1983] HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120

Stephen Cavanaugh v Randy Bartelt, et al., District Court of Nebraska, 4:14-CV-3183, document #47, 12 April 2016, 1 (Gerrad J)

Sharrment Pty Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1988) 82 ALR 530

Mr W Ambrose, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared for the respondent

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is the determination of an application lodged with the Tribunal on 24 April 2019 by Tanya Watkins, seeking review of a decision made by the Corporate Affairs Commission (the Commission).
2. The decision Ms Watkins originally sought to be reviewed was a decision made by the Commission on 20 March 2019, refusing to incorporate the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Australia (the proposed incorporated association) pursuant to the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA) (the Act), on the ground that the proposed incorporated association was not formed for a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose.
3. Subsequent to the application to the Tribunal the applicant, Ms Watkins, filed a significant volume of documents with the Tribunal in support of her application. These documents contained a large quantity of material not before the Commission when the determination was made on 20 March 2019, and on 18 June 2019 the Tribunal invited the Commission to reconsider the decision taking into account this new material.
4. On 6 November 2019 the Commission set aside the decision of 20 March 2019 and substituted a new decision that, having taken into account the new material provided by the applicant, the application was refused.
5. On 11 December 2019 Ms Watkins advised the Tribunal that she sought review of the Commission's decision of 6 November 2019.
6. The Tribunal accepts it is the Commission's decision of 6 November 2019 which is the subject of this review.
7. The Tribunal notes the decision the subject of this review is the fourth decision made by the Commission to reject an application by Ms Watkins to incorporate the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Australia pursuant to the Act. An initial application to incorporate the proposed incorporated association was made by Ms Watkins to the Corporate Affairs Commission on 11 November 2013, on the ground it was formed for a religious purpose, for the advancement of religion. This application was declined, further documentation was then provided, and on 21 August 2015 the Commission declined the application on the ground the proposed incorporated association was not an association formed for a religious purpose. The applicant appealed against this determination to the District Court of SA, but later withdrew the appeal.
8. A further application to incorporate the proposed incorporated association was made on 12 February 2016, on the ground it had been formed for a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose, to promote the religion of Pastafarianism and, in doing so, benefit the community through education, charitable donations, and the advancement of religious freedom and equality. This application was declined on 16 June 2016.
9. The third application was made on 19 September 2017 and the application for incorporation was declined on 20 March 2019. It was this decision which was set aside by the Commission on 6 November 2019 following the referral for reconsideration by the Tribunal, and which was substituted by the decision of 6 November 2019 which is the subject of this review.

1. Ms Watkins made an application to the Commission pursuant to s 19 of the Act, for the proposed incorporated association to be incorporated under the Act. Section 20(1) of the Act requires the Commission to register the rules of an applicant association and issue the association with a certificate of incorporation if it is satisfied that:

(a) The association is eligible to be incorporated under the Act; and

(b) the rules of the association conform with the requirements of the Act; and

(c) the name of the association complies with the requirements of the Act.

1. In considering the first aspect of which the Commission must be satisfied, namely that the association is eligible to be incorporated under the Act, s 18 of the Act addresses eligibility for incorporation. Section 18(12) of the Act provides as follows:

(1) An association formed -

(a) for a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose; or

(b) for the purpose of promoting or encouraging literature, science or the arts; or

(c) for the purpose of providing medical treatment or attention, or promoting the interests of persons who suffer from a particular physical, mental or intellectual disability; or

(d) for the purpose of sport, recreation or amusement; or

(e) for the purpose of establishing, carrying on, or improving a community centre, or promoting the interests of a local community or a particular section of a local community; or

(f) for conserving resources or preserving any part of the environmental, historical or cultural heritage of the State; or

(g) for the purpose of promoting the interests of students or staff of an educational institution; or

(h) for political purposes; or

(i) for the purpose of administering any scheme or fund for the payment of superannuation or retiring benefits to the members of any organisation or the employees of any body corporate, firm or person; or

(j) for the purpose of promoting the common interests of persons who are engaged in, or interested in, a particular business, trade or industry; or

(k) for any purpose approved by the Minister,

is, subject to this Act, eligible to be incorporated under this Act.

1. If an association does not satisfy one of the criteria set out in s 18(1) of the Act it is not eligible to be incorporated under the Act.
2. In her application for the incorporation of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Australia, Ms Watkins relied specifically on s 18(1)(a) of the Act as the basis for the eligibility of the proposed incorporated association to be incorporated, and accordingly she asserted that the proposed incorporated association had been formed for a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose.

1. Ms Watkins explained to the Tribunal that she was seeking incorporation for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Australia in order that the association would be recognised as a not for profit organisation under the Act, and be a legal entity in its own right. She told the Tribunal that s 18(1)(a) of the Act should be used to enable the incorporation of any body that does not come within any of the other categories of eligibility under s 18(1) of the Act and which does anything of a charitable nature, which she asserted was the case with the proposed incorporated association.
2. However, in particular, Ms Watkins submitted that the proposed incorporated association does specifically fall within s 18(1)(a) of the Act, as it was formed for religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purposes.
3. Ms Watkins submitted that the proposed incorporated association was established for purposes consistent with those set out in s 18(1)(a) of the Act. She referred to the proposed incorporated association's Constitution of 15 August 2017. Clause 3 of that Constitution sets out the Objects or purposes of the association as follows:

The objects of the association are

3.1 To promote Pastafariansim

3.2 To promote education in respect to Pastafarianism, including but not limited to educating the public as to the nature, beliefs and values of Pastafarianism

3.3 To formalise and organise the community of Pastafarians in Australia

3.4 To provide relief to diseased, disabled, sick, infirm, incurable, poor, destitute, helpless or unemployed persons, or the dependents of any such persons

3.5 To support and promote the ideals of freedom and equality generally; and

3.6 Any objects consistent with the above objects as the committee may determine from time to time

1. Ms Watkins submitted the proposed incorporated association was established for religious purposes. She said she personally believed Pastafarianism was a religion, and she believed in the truth of its teachings. She referred to the High Court decision in the Scientology Case (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Payroll Tax, [1983] HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120)), in which the Court provided a definition of religion as belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle; and acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.
2. Ms Watkins submitted that the Commission had stated in its rejection of the application for incorporation that it was accepted that Pastafarians (members of the proposed incorporated association) had a belief in Pastafarianism, but nevertheless concluded that Pastafariansim was not itself a religion. She submitted that whether it was a religion was a matter for the belief of its members or adherents, not a matter for the Commission.
3. Ms Watkins told the Tribunal that for some, Pastafarianism was a philosophy, for others it was a social movement. She said Pastafarianism does not require a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but rather a belief in the Universe as a whole, that everyone and everything was connected, and that doing good provided the basis of their behaviour. She said that Pastafarianism had as its basic belief that the force holding society together was manifested in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (that is, god is everywhere), but the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself is a blank canvas which can be depicted as anything you want it to be, as a metaphor for whatever might be, for individuals, the meaning of life. She said that behind this set of beliefs was a set of strong moral and ethical values.
4. Ms Watkins rejected the Commission's view that Pastafarianism was simply a parody of religion. She said that Pastafarianism has a god, supernatural being or principle; an ethical structure; tenets of behaviour recognised by members of the group; and a group of people who see themselves and each other as part of that group. She said bodies such as Buddhism, which do not have a "god", are nevertheless recognised as religious bodies. Ms Watkins told the Tribunal that the Commission referred to aspects of the proposed incorporated association's teachings which utilise humour as evidence that it was a parody of other religions: however, she said these examples were not "mocking" comments about other religions or religion generally, but were included in Pastafarian texts and teachings in order to demonstrate that criticism of other religious practices are misguided, and to encourage Pastafarians to learn more about religion in general as well as other religions. She told the Tribunal that the Pastafarian Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions, was not a parody of the Ten Commandments, but rather set out principles for the Pastafarian life, but with humour. She rejected suggestions that other aspects of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster mocked or parodied religious texts, and submitted that references therein to the Jewish sacred text as The Old Testicle, and the Christian bible as The New Testicle, and the Muslim Quran as the Q-tip or whatever, and the Hindu Vedas as Ten Little Indians, were examples of humour and invitations to readers to inform themselves further, not mocking or parodic references to other religions and their texts.
5. Ms Watkins submitted that the proposed incorporated association also fulfilled other criteria within s 18(1)(a) of the Act, establishing the criteria for incorporation. She conceded that some of the activities of the proposed incorporated association were not yet addressing these objects, but she referred the Tribunal in particular to the Australian Humanist Convention in April 2018 involving the proposed incorporated association in conjunction with its commitment to education concerning human rights as set out in Object 3.5 in the Constitution. This Convention had addressed Kaurna land issues, domestic violence, homelessness, religious freedom, sexual harassment, and broader issues of equality in society. She said the proposed incorporated association "did lots of organising of the Convention", including arranging the Convention, the venue, and the entertainment. She said the proposed incorporated association participated in this Convention with other associations, and this was a demonstration of its charitable and educational purpose. She said there had been no charge to attend the Convention, and about 60 people attended.
6. Ms Watkins said the proposed incorporated association also established "Feed the Hungry" events at Flinders University, open for anyone who needed a meal. She said these events were open to everyone, not just members of the association.
7. Ms Watkins told the Tribunal that the association in South Australia does not have any members at the moment, preferring to have the proposed incorporated association incorporated first and then admitting members.
8. Ms Watkins submitted that Pastafarianism, the name attached to the practices or set of beliefs of the members of the proposed incorporated association, places much emphasis on helping and assisting others, focussing on ending poverty and showing tolerance and compassion to others. She said these "humanitarian" or philosophical purposes should be included within the meaning of the activities referred to in s 18(1)(a) of the Act. In any event she submitted these purposes of the proposed incorporated association were clearly within the meaning of "charitable" in s 18(1)(a) of the Act. She said charitable purposes constituted a significant purpose of the proposed incorporated association, and it was intended that when it had the money it would engage in more charitable activities in pursuit of these objects, including building a homeless shelter. She said it was expected that when it did obtain incorporated status it would be able to attract donations as a not for profit organisation and so pursue these objects.
9. Ms Watkins called a witness, Scott James Sharrad, to give evidence to the Tribunal.
10. Mr Sharrad told the Tribunal he had been a co-organiser of the 2018 Australian Humanist Convention, as President of the Australian Humanist Association, along with the Flinders University Secular Society. He said he had approached other organisations with similar interests to be involved in the organisation and presentation of the Convention. He said he approached the proposed incorporated association as it seemed it was aligned with the interests being promoted by the Convention, namely humans coming up with answers to human problems and helping people to live better lives. He said he was not a member of the proposed incorporated association, did not intend to join it, and was not a believer in any supernatural deity.
11. Mr Sharrad also said he had attended the Feed the Hungry events provided by the Flinders Pastafarian group. He said there had been 3 to 4, and sometimes up to 10, people at these events.

1. The Commission was represented by Mr Ambrose. He submitted to the Tribunal that the decision of the Commission was both the correct and preferable decision in this matter and so should be affirmed.
2. Mr Ambrose told the Tribunal the decision turned on whether the proposed incorporated association had been established for a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose within s 18(1)(a) of the Act. He said Ms Watkins had not suggested that the purposes of the proposed incorporated association came within any of the other criteria set out in s 18 of the Act.
3. Mr Ambrose submitted that Pastafarianism was not a religion, but rather was a parody or a critique of religion generally. He said the Commission did not in its decision make any finding concerning matters of belief, but rather indicated that although "members ... may share a common interest ... and a belief in Pastafarianism", the Commissioner was "not satisfied that Pastafarianism is a religion", specifically referring to the principles stated by the High Court in the Scientology Case (1983).
4. Mr Ambrose submitted to the Tribunal that the central text of Pastafarianism, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, was an attack on established religions by way of parody. He submitted that the suggestion by Ms Watkins that the purpose of the mockery of established religions and their texts is to encourage others to read and learn about those religions is not supported by any other evidence, documentary or otherwise, provided by her in support of her application.
5. As an example of this parody Mr Ambrose in particular referred the Tribunal to The Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions, contained in The Loose Canon, a holy book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and part of The Old Pastament. Mr Ambrose submitted this material represented a parody of the 10 Commandments of the Christian Bible Old Testament, mimicking that text in terms of the form of language and content, and mocking the content, presenting it as ridiculous and trivial. He submitted that this, and other examples referred to in his written submission, demonstrated that Pastafarianism was a hoax, sham or parody, and not a religion for the purposes of the Act.
6. Mr Ambrose referred the Tribunal to the decision of Stephen Cavanaugh v Randy Bartelt, et al., District Court of Nebraska, 4:14-CV-3183, document #47, 12 April 2016, 1 (Gerrad J), in which the District Court of Nebraska found that Pastafarianism is not a religion, but a parody, intended to advance an argument about science and the place of religion in public education. In particular, Gerrard J concluded that

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction ... Of course, there are those who contend ... that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such.

Mr Ambrose suggested this approach was highly persuasive in this matter.

1. Mr Ambrose referred to numerous other examples in the "Pastafarian texts" which he submitted illustrated the parodic and mocking purpose and nature of the material, and which he submitted could not be reasonably interpreted as intending to form the basis of a belief system or practice to support such. He submitted the writings were a parody of all religions and the nature of god, and were often presented in offensively racist and sexist terms. The principles to assist in the definition of religion provided by the High Court in the Scientology Case include reference to a collection of views and beliefs with reference to which people can live, and he suggested that the material contained in the Pastafarian writings did not constitute such material.
2. Mr Ambrose submitted that more than a belief system was required to demonstrate a religion. He referred to the multiple indicia identified by the High Court in the Scientology Case. Mason ACJ and Brennan, Wilson and Deane JJ, referred to a belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and an acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief. Wilson and Deane JJ also added further criteria, including that the ideas must relate to man's nature and place in the universe and relation to things supernatural; that adherents constitute an identifiable group or groups, however loose; and that the adherents themselves see the collection of ideas and/or practices as constituting a religion.
3. Mr Ambrose told the Tribunal that no explanation had been provided by Ms Watkins as to how the proposed incorporated association was a religion, other than asserting that the writings referred to did constitute a belief system which was not a charade. He submitted mere assertion is not enough, and that Ms Watkins' argument amounted to no more than an assertion that the ideas presented by Pastafarianism are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion which has incorporated status under s 18 of the Act, and therefore the proposed incorporated association should also be incorporated.
4. Mr Ambrose referred the Tribunal to the 25 statutory declarations provided by Ms Watkins in support of her application. These statutory declarations are all identical, and each deponent asserts their belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster "as my deity", and that they "follow the Pastafarian canons of conduct". Mr Ambrose indicated none of these deponents provide any explanation of why these beliefs and practices constitute a religion, or how ritual is motivated by religion, or how the canons of conduct are connected to belief. He submitted these assertions, also repeated by Ms Watkins before the Tribunal, are assertions only, and not genuine statements of organised religious belief.
5. Mr Ambrose also referred the Tribunal to other criteria in s 18(1)(a) of the Act in addition to the reference to religion, in particular to education and charitable purposes. He submitted that to the extent to which the proposed incorporated association engaged in education or charitable activities this was entirely incidental or ancillary activity, and those activities did not constitute purposes for which the association was formed.
6. Mr Ambrose referred the Tribunal to the proposed incorporated association's Constitution and referred to the several versions which had been provided.
7. The 2014 Constitution indicated that the purposes of the association were entirely connected to the promotion of the Pastafarian philosophy or way of life. The Constitution was subsequently revised, but the version of 18 January 2016 was similar, but with no reference to education. Another revised Constitution of 15 August 2017 adds in a reference to charitable purposes, but this version of the Constitution is not signed. The version of the Constitution provided by the applicant in July 2017 in response to a letter from the Commission refers to the promotion of education in relation to Pastafarianism.
8. Mr Ambrose submitted that despite "random references" to education, it was apparent from the objects set out in these versions of the Constitution that the primary purpose of the association is the promotion of the Pastafarian way of life and philosophy. There was no reference to education other than as education relating to Pastafarianism, and he submitted this does not constitute "education" for the purposes of the Act. Mr Ambrose submitted that "education" requires a systematic process of instruction, training and practice, imparting knowledge and guiding the development of the mind through training or teaching. He submitted that none of these features existed either through the practice of Pastafarianism or in what was suggested or envisaged in the Constitution, and did not come within the meaning of education in s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
9. Mr Ambrose told the Tribunal Ms Watkins had not referred to any engagement in education at large or in any ongoing manner, but rather involvement in a single event, arranged by another organisation, covering a broad and general range of topics of general interest. He submitted there was no evidence of interest or engagement in any systematic process of learning, and the provision of information concerning Pastafarianism on the association's website did not constitute education, but rather merely the provision of information.
10. With respect to charitable purposes, Mr Ambrose submitted that this could not be regarded as a dominating or even significant purpose of the proposed incorporated association. He indicated in the various Constitutions provided for the association, some referred to charitable purposes, some did not.
11. He submitted that the references to the Feed the Hungry events could not establish that these were examples of the proposed incorporated association's charitable purpose. There was no evidence these were broadly based charitable events or that they were attended by anyone other than members or associates of the association. He also referred to assertions in the provided materials that the proposed incorporated association provided financial support as loans to needy people through its Kiva website. However, the material provided indicated that this support did not amount to interest free loans, and they could not be regarded as benevolent because the loans were required to be repaid. There was evidence of only 8 loans provided since 2016.
12. Mr Ambrose also referred to the legal treatment of Pastafarianism elsewhere. Ms Watkins in her written material to the Commission asserted that Pastafarianism is recognised "all around the world". One example was in New Zealand, where the New Zealand affiliate of the proposed incorporated association was approved as an organisation to provide celebrants to officiate at marriages.
13. Mr Ambrose provided an affirmed affidavit of Jeffrey Ronald Montgomery, Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages in New Zealand. Mr Montgomery states that in 2015 the New Zealand affiliate of the proposed incorporated association applied for approval as an organisation for the purpose of nominating persons to solemnise marriages. Mr Montgomery approved this application in November 2015, but issued reasons explicitly stating that the granting of such approval "does not grant any particular status to the Church, other than being able to later nominate celebrants for my consideration", and he also states, "[N]o judgement is made on the validity of these beliefs or convictions". Mr Ambrose told the Tribunal this case does not support Ms Watkins' assertion that Pastafarianism is recognised in New Zealand. He also told the Tribunal that although Ms Watkins referred to some other jurisdictions where some Pastafarian practices have apparently been accepted for some purposes, she had made no reference to other international jurisdictions where Pastafarianism has not been accepted or endorsed.
14. Mr Ambrose concluded that the material does not demonstrate that the proposed incorporated association was formed for religious purposes. He told the Tribunal Pastafarianism was not a religion because there was no adherence to any genuine belief, and no statement or structure in the "Gospel" or "Canon" referring to any "supernatural being thing or principle" by which people can lead their lives. He referred the Tribunal in particular to the discussion of the principles by which a religion may be identified as set out by the High Court in the Scientology Case.

1. In reviewing the decision made by the Commission to reject Ms Watkins' application for incorporation of the proposed incorporated association, the Tribunal must examine the Commission's decision by way of a rehearing, and consider what is the correct or preferable decision, giving appropriate weight to the decision of the original decision maker, namely the Commission, (see s 34(3) and (4) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act)).
2. As this constitutes a rehearing, the Tribunal is able to take into account both the material before the original decision maker and any additional evidence presented. The additional material before the Tribunal includes Ms Watkins' own assertions before the Tribunal, the evidence of Mr Sharrad, the 25 affidavits of Pastafarian members, and the affidavit of Mr Montgomery. I take this, and all the documentary material provided, into account.
3. The decision of the Commission in this matter was to reject Ms Watkins' application for the proposed incorporated association as it did not satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in s 18(1)(a) of the Act, in particular, that it was not "formed" for a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose.
4. The central issue for the Tribunal in considering if the decision of the Commission was correct is whether the proposed incorporated association was formed for one or more of these specified purposes. Ms Watkins' primary argument is that Pastafarianism constitutes a religion, and the association was thus formed for religious purposes. As a supporting or ancillary argument she also submitted that the association was formed for educational and charitable purposes. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the association was formed for religious purposes, then s 20(1) of the Act requires that the Commission must register the rules of the association and issue a certificate of incorporation for the association, subject only to the other criteria set out in s 20(1).
5. The most recent Constitution of the association, dated 15 August 2017 sets out the objects of the association in clause 3:

3.1 To promote Pastafariansim

3.2 To promote education in respect to Pastafarianism, including but not limited to educating the public as to the nature, beliefs and values of Pastafarianism

3.3 To formalise and organise the community of Pastafarians in Australia

3.4 To provide relief to diseased, disabled, sick, infirm, incurable, poor, destitute, helpless or unemployed persons, or the dependents of any such persons

3.5 To support and promote the ideals of freedom and equality generally; and

3.6 Any objects consistent with the above objects as the committee may determine from time to time

1. The focus of these objects is the promotion of Pastafarianism. Pastafarianism is the organisation which was submitted to constitute a religion. On this basis the submission is that the association was formed for a religious purpose, namely, to promote, promulgate and organise a religion, namely Pastafarianism, and to conduct its activities.
2. With her application to the Commission Ms Watkins provided material setting out the beliefs of the association, contained in various texts relating to Pastafarianism, in particular in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, dated 2006, and The Loose Canon, subtitled "a holy book of the church of the flying spaghetti monster", and containing sections entitled Proclamations of the Councils of Olive Garden, The Old Pastament, The New Pastament, The Official Pastafarian Prayer Book, and Final Thoughts from Olive Garden Council-members. Ms Watkins also provided statutory declarations from 25 Pastafarian members, all asserting their belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their "deity", and their adherence to Pastafarian canons of conduct.
3. In determining if Pastafarianism is a religion for the purposes of s 18(1)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal was directed to the discussion by the High Court of what constitutes a religion in the 1983 decision of Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Payroll Tax [1983] HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120 (the Scientology Case).
4. The High Court identified multiple indicia for determining if a set of beliefs constituted a religion. Mason ACJ and Brennan, Wilson and Deane JJ, referred to a belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and an acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief. Wilson and Deane JJ added further criteria, including that the ideas must relate to humanity's nature and place in the universe and its relation to things supernatural; that adherents constitute an identifiable group or groups, however loose; and that the adherents themselves must see the collection of ideas and practices as constituting a religion.
5. Ms Watkins told the Tribunal that she "believed in" Pastafarianism, and the 25 deponents whose statutory declarations were before the Tribunal state that they "believe in" the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their "deity", and live according to the tenets of Pastafarianism. Ms Watkins submitted this evidence of belief was sufficient to establish that what was believed in constituted a religion.
6. Having reference to the indicia provided by the High Court in the Scientology Case, I do not accept this is the case. There must be a structure and organisation which consciously connects conduct and ritual to a belief in some overarching thing, idea or principle, as well giving effect to it. In addition however, there must be some motivation to the belief that is, in the commonly accepted sense, a religious motivation: this is proposed in the additional criteria of Wilson and Deane JJ in referring to those ideas and beliefs relating to the supernatural and to "man's nature and place in the universe", expressing this as follows:[1]

One of the most important indicia of "a religion" is that the particular collection of ideas and/or practices involves belief in the supernatural, that is to say, belief that reality extends beyond that which is capable of perception by the senses. If that be absent, it is unlikely that one has "a religion". Another is that the ideas relate to man's nature and place in the universe and his relation to things supernatural.

Their Honours emphasise that no one of the above criteria is necessarily determinative of the question whether a particular collection of ideas and/or practices should objectively be characterised as "a religion", but they also make it clear that they are concerned with genuine beliefs, structures and principles, "[p]utting to one side the case of the parody or sham".

1. The Commission's view, and the submissions made by Mr Ambrose in support of the decision, was that regardless of any issue of belief, structure and organisation, Pastafarianism is a "parody or sham", and its texts constitute and are presented as a satire on established religions, mocking and satirising them for another purpose, not for the purpose of articulating a relationship between humanity and the supernatural and in this context, humanity's place in the universe, with tenets of belief and canons of behaviour and conduct to reflect and effect those relationships. Mr Ambrose's submissions focussed on the disrespectful and often offensive way in which the Pastafarian texts reference other religions as demonstrating their parodic and so not genuinely religious, nature.
2. In Sharrment Pty Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1988) 82 ALR 530, the Full Court of the Federal Court defined "sham" (in the context of corporations law), to mean

Something that is intended to be mistaken for something else or that is not really what it purports to be. It is a spurious imitation, a counterfeit, a disguise or a false front. It is not genuine or true, but something made in imitation of something else or made to appear to be something which it is not. It is something which is false or deceptive.

The Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary defines "parody or satire" (in the context of copyright law) as an imitation of work made for comic effect.

1. The Pastafarian texts referred to above are set out in a conventional or traditional "religious" form, but they contain some surprising articulations. In particular there are numerous expressions which reference the texts of established religions, mimicking those texts in form and language, but in a clearly parodic form. These include such references such as The Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions, contained in The Loose Canon, a holy book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and part of The Old Pastament; references to the Jewish sacred text as The Old Testicle, the Christian bible as The New Testicle, the Muslim Quran as the Q-tip or whatever, and the Hindu Vedas as Ten Little Indians; and the use of expressions such as torahtellini, pastalms, and apastles.
2. I do not accept the applicant's explanation of the use of these expressions (and numerous other similar expressions, many expressed in racist and sexist terms, referencing texts or practices of other religions) as examples of humour, and for the purpose of generating curiosity so that readers may be encouraged to research and learn about these other religions. Ms Watkins suggested that the sexist and racist terms used constituted the humour. There is nothing in the Pastafarian texts which references other religions in a positive manner or directs attention to them other than in a mocking form. In so far as these expressions and references to other religions or religious texts or practices are made in what might be regarded by Pastafarians as in a humorous form, it is likely that for adherents of the other religions the references would be regarded, at best, as offensive and insulting, rather than amusing or curiosity-provoking.
3. It is my view that the Pastafarian texts can only be read as parody or satire_,_ namely, an imitation of work made for comic effect. In my view its purpose is to satirise or mock established religions, and it does so without discrimination. That it is a satire or mockery of religion is not making a negative assessment of the Pastafarian texts, but it is distinguishing between the texts being themselves "religious" texts, ostensibly carrying some perceived truth and tenets of belief about a supernatural being, thing or principle, and an articulation of canons of conduct arising out of that belief and giving effect to that belief; and the texts being a satire upon established religious texts, mocking and attacking them by appropriating their form and language. This is well illustrated with reference to what is clearly a parody of the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament in The Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions, mimicking the Bible text in terms of language and content, and mocking it as either mundane or ridiculous. I am satisfied the Pastafarian texts do not represent, are not, and are not intended to be, religious texts.
4. I am not able to make an assessment as to whether Ms Watkins, who said she believed in Pastafarianism, or the deponents of the 25 statutory declarations provided to the Tribunal who all state they accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their deity, have a religious belief in Pastafarianism, but in my view it is not necessary for me to make any such assessment. However, I note there was no evidence concerning how ritual is motivated by religion, or how the canons of conduct are connected to belief. Belief is a subjective notion, and people are free to choose their own beliefs. However, subjective belief does not make the subject of the belief a religion for the purposes of the law in Australia, and an association formed to promote that belief will not make that association one formed for a religious purpose within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
5. However, although belief is a subjective notion, there are some objective considerations to be taken into account in determining if something is a religion within the meaning of Australian law. The general principles are clear. The Pastafarian texts present a "supernatural being, thing or principle" (the Flying Spaghetti Monster); canons of conduct demonstrating that belief (for example, The Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions); and some rituals which are related to or derived from some aspects of the texts (for example, wearing colanders). Do these considerations establish that Pastafarianism is a religion? Wilson and Deane JJ in the Scientology Case suggest more than these objective considerations is necessary. They suggest there must also be a religious motivation among the adherents, and an understanding that beliefs or ideas relate to and help define humanity's nature and place in the universe and to things supernatural. I am not satisfied any evidence of such motivation and understanding has been provided in relation to Pastafarianism.
6. However, underlying all these considerations is the distinction between a religion, and a hoax, sham or parody of religion.
7. Pastafarianism in its texts and practices seeks to present itself as a religion. Its adherents say they "believe" in it as a religion. Nevertheless I am satisfied that its texts are not religious texts nor intended as such: I am satisfied that they are parodic texts, developed and expressed for the purpose of mocking and satirising established religions, holding them up to ridicule and suggesting they are worthless and meaningless. The texts set up the satire by appropriating the form and language of established religious texts and taking the precepts and teachings of those religions and presenting them as merely mundane, pragmatic, or ridiculous. The Pastafarian texts do not have any intrinsic value in terms of articulating a relationship between humanity and the supernatural and humanity's place in the universe, presenting tenets of belief and canons of behaviour and conduct to reflect and effect that relationship and relationships with others. At best the texts present ordinary moral admonitions and mundane articulations of principles of conduct present in the texts of most other established religions.
8. I am satisfied that the Pastafarian texts present a hoax religion, a sham or parody of religion. In the words used in Sharrmant v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy,

It is not genuine or true, but something made in imitation of something else or made to appear to be something which it is not

The Pastafarian texts have been made in imitation of established religious texts and presented to appear as something they are not.

1. None of the evidence before the Tribunal supports the view that Pastafarianism is a religion. This includes the evidence of Mr Sharrad, who expressed the view that he contacted the Pastafarians to be involved in his Convention because he saw them as endorsing a lifestyle consistent with his humanist belief system, of humans resolving human problems. The evidence of Mr Montgomery, the New Zealand Registrar General for Births Deaths and Marriages, was that he accepted that the Pastafarian organisation could be authorised to nominate celebrants for officiating at marriages, no more.
2. On this basis I am satisfied that the Commission's decision that the proposed incorporated association was not formed for a religious purpose within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act, was the correct decision

1. Ms Watkins submitted that s 18(1)(a) should be interpreted broadly to enable the incorporation of any organisations which undertook charitable work which did not fit within any of the categories nominated in the sub section. The terms of s 18(1)(a) are however very broad and can encompass a very generous range of organisations: they include bodies formed for religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purposes, and the rest of s 18(1) encompasses organisations formed for a very broad range of activities and purposes. The issue in this matter is not the breadth of interpretation provided to the categories set out in s 18(1), but rather, the reality of the purposes for which the relevant organisation is formed. If the organisation has been truly formed for religious purposes, it will come within s 18(1)(a) of the Act: the point here is that this organisation has not been truly formed for religious purposes, but has been formed for other purposes and is not a religion at all, whatever it calls itself. The law must be concerned with substance, not mere form; with reality, not distracted by a sham or hoax.
2. Ms Watkins made submissions at the hearing that the proposed incorporated association could also be characterised as formed for educational or charitable purposes. To demonstrate this she referred to educational or charitable activities in which she said the proposed incorporated association had engaged, including its involvement in the 2018 Australian Humanist Convention; its establishment of Feed the Hungry meal sessions at Flinders University; and its loan activities set out on its Kiva website. She also referred to material concerning Pastafarianism available on the proposed incorporated association's website as an example of educational activities.
3. I do not accept that these examples demonstrate that the proposed incorporated association was "formed" for educational or charitable purposes. Its purposes (for which it was "formed") are set out in clause 3 of its 2017 Constitution. Clause 3 demonstrates very clearly that the primary purpose for which it was formed was to "promote Pastafarianism", and secondarily, to "promote education in respect to Pastafarianism", and to "formalise and organise the community of Pastafarians". Education, other than in relation to Pastafarianism, is not a purpose of the association. Additional purposes refer to charitable work, but this aspect of its purpose is not in any way a dominant purpose or a purpose in its own terms but is dependent on and part of the promotion of Pastafarianism. The association was not "formed" for these purposes, as required by s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
4. In addition, the examples provided by Ms Watkins do not in any sense suggest that the proposed incorporated association has taken on as its purpose any educational or charitable activities of consistency or significance such as to transform its purpose. This is not to denigrate or undermine the activities the proposed incorporated association has engaged in, but participation (as one of several organisations) in one Convention, the provision in a limited environment of some free meals to a few participants, and provision of 8 low interest loans, do not translate the proposed incorporated association from a parody of a religious organisation to an educational or charitable organisation. There is no evidence or suggestion of systematic teaching and learning processes undertaken by the proposed incorporated association which are an essential aspect of an educational purpose; nor of any structured consistent and broad-based charitable activities other than narrowly based functions promoting Pastafarianism.

1. I am satisfied that the decision of the Commission made on 6 November 2019, that the proposed incorporated association was not formed for a religious purpose within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act, was the correct decision.
2. I am also satisfied this was also the preferable decision in this matter. I am satisfied that the proposed incorporated association merely presents as having a religious purpose, but is a sham religion or a parody of religion. It was not formed for a religious purpose. On this basis to conclude it is eligible for incorporation as a body with a religious purpose could clearly not be a preferable decision.
3. The decision will be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Payroll Tax [1983] HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120, 174.