Hillsong whistleblower: more secrets emerge from the Till on the Hill

Hello, Hillsong. It’s us again.

We would like to get something straight from the start. We see on page 20 of the statement of claim lodged on behalf of whistleblower Natalie Moses in the Federal Court last week that you asked if she might be talking to the media. And apparently, according to Moses, you also said Hillsong had to be “extra vigilant” because of the attention it was getting from the media. There was a concern about leaks.

We would like to say that Moses was not talking to us. However, many others have, as you know.

Hillsong is facing a right pickle at the moment. For decades it has controlled the message, but in the past six to nine months it’s been mayhem. From founder Brian Houston’s decision to step aside from all board positions to the entire audio recording of the staff meeting that ended Houston’s reign, the big news has appeared in the media first (and yes, often Crikey), with Hillsong playing catch-up.

No wonder a bunker mentality has taken hold at the Till on the Hill, as it is (not entirely affectionately) known.

Natalie Moses was employed at Hillsong from March 2020 to mid-June this year, at which point it all went pear-shaped. In that time she worked at the very heart of the Hillsong enterprise: the getting of money. Moses was involved in raising donation revenues, increasing “donor engagement”, making grant applications, and managing income reporting. Critically she had access to board papers, minutes of meetings, and resolutions for several Hillsong entities stretching back around 10 years.

Documents, documents, documents. By the time her employment was suspended and her email access was cut, Moses had downloaded some 40,000 confidential files, according to Federal Court records. 

By the end of June, Hillsong’s most sensitive secrets had passed into enemy hands, as it were (if that is what we call someone driven to do the right thing). This was a position Hillsong has not before encountered, where over decades loyal staff have trusted the whole Hillsong project and gone along with a culture where you don’t rock the boat.

Crikey doesn’t know Natalie Moses. But those who do tell us this. 

“She is incredibly smart. Highly experienced, very intelligent and analytical and 100% ethical.” 

“She was probably the only person who was ever going to be able to work it all out and speak up because she is the only staff member who has worked in-depth across both the finance and governance areas. This would have been necessary to pull together all the pieces of the puzzle.”

Finding a public trace of Natalie Moses is not so easy now, but a source tells us she has had substantial experience in the charity and corporate sectors and appeared to have “quickly identified when something was not right”.

Above all, Natalie Moses has brought an outsider’s eye to an organisation that has been run by a small clique of Houston family and friends. 

And like others who have recently spoken up, she appears fundamentally to be disillusioned by her experience. A common story among Crikey’s Hillsong sources and publicly known objectors is that they feel their Christian faith and early belief in the vision of Brian Houston have been betrayed. Another common link is that they have tried to make their concerns known inside the organisation but have felt thwarted by a senior group of older men loyal to the enterprise.

So what’s been going on then?

Natalie Moses’ statement of claim outlines irregularities in the transfer of funds from Hillsong’s Australian entities. 

It started with a concern about how $10,000 was to be passed to people seeking to establish a Hillsong church in Romania. Moses warned her boss that overseas transfers of this ilk could not happen under legislation governing not-for-profits in Australia. The funds were eventually paid via a United States-based Hillsong entity, thereby avoiding Australian regulations.

From there Moses, according to the statement of claim, briefed Hillsong directors on the need for better compliance of Hillsong’s 18 not-for-profit entities in Australia. This included creating agreements for third-party transfers, including to its international operations, and creating a formal system to manage conflicts of interest.

Moses escalated this via a presentation to departmental heads and detailed the changes that needed to be made, including meeting “external standards” on sending money overseas.

It’s worth pausing at this point to remind readers of the kind of multinational juggernaut Hillsong has become. You don’t need a degree in divinity to understand Hillsong. You need to be a forensic accountant.

Hillsong might have been born in Australia, but its centre of gravity shifted to the United States a decade ago. It registered well over a dozen entities in US jurisdictions like Texas and Virginia where there is comparatively less demand for transparency. The church also has corporate registration in the UK and European countries.

At the same time, Hillsong entities have been involved in a huge range of money-making activities, from education to property to music.  

Moses overtly identified the risks involved with mingling money from different pots. She warned that it might be fraudulent to offer tax deductions on donations to building a Hillsong facility at Festival Hall in Melbourne.

She warned that it was unethical and illegal for the Hillsong board to use tax-deductible donations made to the Hillsong Foundation to cover the church’s $9 million deficit. This warning in particular will resonate with Hillsong followers who donate to the foundation to support humanitarian work in Africa and elsewhere.

As one former Hillsong insider put it to Crikey: “Whole families make sacrifices and choose to go without things in a sort of way to ‘fast’ to give, thinking they are helping those with far less. Also, Hillsong frames it as a ‘holy weekend’ consecrating these sacrifices to God.”

The worst of seasons

If Hillsong ever fully unravels, then mark down March 2022 as the turning point.

Publicly Brian Houston was being brought to book for his behaviour towards two women. His transgressions had been covered up for 10 years in one case and three years in another. The revelations ended his official connection with the mighty empire he had built.

At the same time, a US documentary appeared that lacerated Hillsong and the Houstons, primarily over the scandals that engulfed the church’s New York operations.

Behind the scenes, though, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC) had begun an investigation into Hillsong charities. 

Hillsong assigned Moses to investigate 10 Hillsong charities for their compliance with the law. What she uncovered has now found its way into her claim of mistreatment as a whistleblower.

In her claim, Moses alleges that a number of directors of Hillsong Church were pastors being paid full-time salaries, as well as receiving substantial sums of money in cash as honorariums for speaking engagements conducted in their roles as pastors for Hillsong. Significant gifts were also made to directors of Hillsong companies and their families and friends.

It painted a picture of favouritism and cronyism, with those clustered around Brian Houston potentially receiving large sums of money and “designer gifts” with little or no transparency.

Moses alleges in her statement of claim that as she revealed her findings to Hillsong’s senior ranks, she was told to “come up with a story” that would be acceptable to the ACNC.

So what now? 

If what Moses says in her statement of claim is true, then it is hard to see how Hillsong can go unpunished for what appears to be breaches of the law. Her statement lays direct responsibility at the door of Hillsong’s directors, who have included Brian Houston and a more or less constant group of up to 10 close colleagues.

At another level, though, Moses’ statement implies that the ACNC and Australia’s charity laws have failed to hold Hillsong to account for many years. This begs the question as to whether Australia’s laws are fit for purpose regarding regulating a wealthy multinational entity such as Hillsong, which can take advantage of weaker disclosure laws in other jurisdictions to get around national laws and accountability.

These questions are particularly vexing for Hillsong, the business model of which relies on the tax-exempt status of many of its entities. It’s little wonder then that Hillsong has called on the services of Australia’s foremost charity law expert, Murray Baird, to help sort out the mess.

Baird is uniquely placed to do the job. He helped set up and lead the ACNC as its inaugural assistant commissioner and general counsel in 2012, finishing up in 2019. Baird is an office holder in half a dozen charities linked to the Newhope Baptist Church in Melbourne. Most potently Baird provided the legal firepower in a landmark charities case decided by the High Court in 2008.

Baird also acted for Word Investments, the business arm of a missionary organisation called Wycliffe Bible Translation. The High Court ruled four to one that the profits from Word Investments, which were used to fund Wycliffe’s activities, should be exempt from tax.

“It has implications for the Salvation Army running furniture businesses, the YMCA running swimming pools and fitness centres, Hillsong selling CDs, the Seventh Day Adventist Church running Sanitarium, making breakfast foods, and the Diabetes Foundation selling used clothing,” Baird said at the time, displaying an uncanny 2022 vision.

The dissenting judge, Justice Michael Kirby, had wondered aloud if there was any prospect that Word’s profits could be used for a “high lifestyle” such as that enjoyed by US television evangelists.

Fancy that.

Full disclosure now needed

In early June this year — as tensions were rising between Natalie Moses and her employer — Hillsong aired an interview on its video channel with the church’s long-serving chief financial officer director Peter Ridley. Ridley, who is named several times in Moses’ statement of claim, betrayed little of the drama that was occurring behind the scenes.

Ridley said Hillsong had always valued good governance and strong stewardship. “It’s always been a value of pastors Brian and Bobbie, our board and our management,” he told his audience.

Hillsong has also said it will defend the action that has been brought against it.

But beyond any official action, Natalie Moses has raised the one issue that continues to eat away at Hillsong as it seeks to chart a course beyond the Houston years: how to trust the church. Without naming it, this is likely a reference to what really happened on a July night in 2019 when a drunk Brian Houston entered the hotel room of a woman who was a financial supporter of Hillsong.

As noted in her statement of claim: “Ms Moses said that the problem that will continue to affect trust amongst staff is that the board and executive covered up the conduct of (Brian) Houston and never took full accountability for the cover-up.”

Moses added that there was a need for “key people” to “openly apologise and repent” for staff to trust them.

In Hillsong’s version of what happened that night, Houston had lost his own room key and gone to the woman’s room where he stayed for 40 minutes. Hillsong’s version had it that both Houston and the woman were drunk and have no coherent memory of the night, though nothing of a sexual nature had happened. The woman has never given her side of the story. 

Hillsong’s version might stretch credulity but it has been convenient for Brian Houston. Its “investigation” of the event was carried out by a small group of co-religionists. As far as Crikey is aware, the church has never referred the matter to police.

But the truth does need to be known to restore faith in the church and its mission. For many, it is one cover-up too many.

Hillsong has been contacted for comment.

If you wish to provide information on this story please contact David Hardaker securely via dhardaker@protonmail.com.

What does the future of the Hillsong Church hold? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.