Home / Charity Reviews /

Archived: Worldview Centre For Intercultural Studies: mini-charity review

Care:  At least some of the information about this charity is no longer current.  Use the ‘Search charity names’ box to see if there is a later review.  If the latest review has a message like this, you are welcome to make your case for an updated review via email to ted@businessbythebook.com.au.

Mini charity review of Worldview Centre For Intercultural Studies (WC) as an Associate member of Missions Interlink. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is WC registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • WC is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • It is permitted to omit ‘Ltd/Limited’ at the end of its name.

What do they do?

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No – they educate Christians.

What impact are they having?

  • There is no mention of impact, outcomes or results on the website.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • The expenses are not classified to allow this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • There is no online giving.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • Donations are not sought.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes. (Six months after year end, two days before the deadline.)

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015 [amended 17.02.18] : Not quite
    • ‘Other Income’ does not match the same item in the financial statements.
    • There are no outcomes.
  • Financial Report 2015 [amended 17.02.18]: Questionable
    • The Statement of Comprehensive Income is missing an ‘Other comprehensive income’ section.
    • They report no employee benefits. Although this matches their reporting of zero employees, in the AIS, it is based on their belief that their workers, being ‘religious practitioners’ or ‘members of religious orders’, are not employees at common law. But even if this is true, it does not provide an exemption from the statues that govern staff.
    • Note 3b does not match the body of the statement.
    • Inventories are not valued correctly.
    • There is no breakup of the $978K of ‘Property, Plant & equipment’.
    • There is no related parties’ disclosure.
  • WC must report to the ACNC because its parent, W.E.C. International has not taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • Last year’s deficit of 10% of revenue blew out to 23% this year.
  • Working capital (current assets less current liabilities) is strongly positive.
  • There are no long-term liabilities.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[1].
    • This means that he agreed with WC’s non-reporting of employee benefits (see above).

If a charity, is their page on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Yes

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not mentioned on the website. But
  • From ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register:
  • If you ‘search the (ACNC) register by responsible person’, you will find that, other than ‘Stephen Brown’, who has eight, these directors have no more than one other charity directorship.  WC’s Stephen Brown has at least two non-charity directorships; if, after eliminating the entries in the Register that don’t belong to him, you are left with his total being more than a handful, it would be legitimate for you to question whether his ability to discharge his or her fiduciary responsibilities is threatened.

To whom is WC accountable?

  • WC is an Associate member of Missions Interlink. Missions Interlink has an accountability regime[2].
  • WC is also accountable to the ACNC.



  1. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  2. For one opinion on the strength of that accountability, see the section Activities in this review.